Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

YORK CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]

PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords]

SALISBURY RAILWAY AND MARKET HOUSE BILL [Lords]

WITHAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Tower of London (Lecture Hall and Cinema)

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will consider providing a dual-purpose building to act as a lecture hall and cinema at the Tower of London; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am considering plans for the Waterloo Block at the Tower which include provision for a dual-purpose lecture room cinema.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. May I take it that he is considering this matter as one of urgency?

Mr. Mellish: At the moment we are involved in what is called phase one of the rebuilding and the two top floors are being converted. I understand that this is due to be completed by the end of 1970. The work to which I have referred in my main Answer is phase two. My problem is to get the money to do the job.

Public Statues and Memorials, London

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many public statues and memorials to individual persons are located in London, which come under his Department's jurisdiction; how often they are cleaned and maintained; what criteria are applied to their removal or replacement; and when the last was erected.

Mr. Mellish: I am responsible only for certain of those Public statues and memorials sited within the Metropolitan Police District. There are 75 of these commemorating individual persons. Their cleaning and maintenance is carried out periodically, the frequency varying according to circumstances. They are not removed or replaced unless there are special reasons for doing so. The last to be erected was the bust of Admiral


Cunningham, which was unveiled in Trafalgar Square in April, 1967.

Mr. Smith: Would the righ hon. Gentleman not agree that some of the statues are grievously out of date and commemorate people of whom the modern generation have not even heard? Is it not time that they became a little more relevant and were substituted by statues of outstanding men and women of the current century?

Mr. Mellish: These are all matters of opinion and I will take advice on them, but I thought that statues were to remind people of yester-years as well as today.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not long ago Paris had a purge of statues and improved the beauty of Paris very much? Will he consider giving Earl Haig back to the Distillers' Company?

Mr. Mellish: I have a great deal of affection for my hon. Friend. I think that if he goes on as he is going on, we shall have to put a statue up to him.

Building Industry (Industrial Waste Materials)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for the utilisation of industrial waste materials for the building industry.

Mr. Mellish: As a result of continuing work by the Building Research Station and other bodies, the building industry uses substantial and increasing quantities of aggregates derived from industrial waste, amounting in some cases to almost the entire output. Large quantities are used also in civil engineering. The station is helping to promote the use of these materials.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that as two nationalised industries, the National Coal Board and the C.E.G.B., are the largest producers of industrial waste, it would be a good idea to initiate discussions with them to ensure that the waste materials are used in the national interest?

Mr. Mellish: I understand that there are consultations going on in the sense

for which my hon. Friend asks. I understand that an appreciable amount of colliery shale is processed into aggregate. There are difficulties about existing tips. I gather that there is an enormous quantity. It is unlikely, I am advised, that the use of this material in construction can make a dramatic contribution to their removal.

Building Regulations

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he plans to take over responsibility for the drafting, revising and administration of the Building Regulations.

Mr. Mellish: These Regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. No steps are being taken to change the existing arrangements.

Mrs. Short: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that his Department is professionally better equipped to deal with matters arising out of the Building Regulations than is his right hon. Friend's Department, in which there are no senior engineering staff?

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend knows that I am not a modest type. I agree with her that my Department is probably the best Government Department of all. Having said that, I must inform her that I am in some difficulty in that she is really asking the wrong Minister the right sort of question.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the right Gentleman agree that responsible people in the construction industry believe that it is time that the Building Regulations were again brought up to date to take account of modern knowledge? As his Ministry is the best one to deal with this matter, will he approach the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the issue?

Mr. Mellish: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. At the end of the day, Ministerial responsibility can be decided only by the Prime Minister. If the construction industry feels as enthusiastically about this as the hon. Gentleman indicates, it might care to write to the Prime Minister on the subject.

Festival of London Stores (Parade)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why permission was refused for the inaugural parade of the Festival of London Stores to be held in Hyde Park on 26th May.

Mr. Mellish: Permission was refused because it is my policy, as it was my predecessors', to preserve the Royal parks as places where the public at large can enjoy reasonable peace and quiet in a rural atmosphere. I am also concerned to safeguard the parks from exploitation for commercial purposes.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the parade was held in Hyde Park last year, I understand successfully? Will he confirm that the reason for the refusal this year had nothing to do with any allegation of mismanagement of the parade last year?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I give him that assurance. Those concerned have a first-class reputation. A precedent was set in this matter last year. That is the trouble with giving permission of this sort. Once granted, a precedent is set. Last year permission was given to create good will for tourism and exports. I suppose that, permission having been given, it was inevitable that people would want the same the following year. Once permission is given to one commercial concern it is thought that it must be given to others, and that I am not prepared to accept.

Monuments (Vandalism)

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which monuments under his control have suffered most damage from vandalism during the past two years.

Mr. Mellish: There were a few incidents, usually minor ones, at a relatively small number of the 722 ancient monuments in my care. The problem has been a more continual worry at one or two places.

Mr. Fletcher: Would my right hon. Friend be more specific and give the possible sociological consequences of his reply? Which monuments have sustained the most damage, what type of damage

has been sustained and what is his Department doing to repair it?

Mr. Mellish: The three monuments concerned are Peter Pan—they regularly steal his pipes—Queen Victoria—they are always stealing her sceptre—and Achilles—they keep pinching his fig leaf. My Department, being dynamic, is ready for all eventualities and has stocks of pipes, sceptres and fig leaves.

Residential Premises (Departmental Use)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many residential premises under the control of his Department are used for commercial or storage purposes.

Mr. Mellish: About 200 premises, originally residential or hotels, are now owned by my Ministry and used for office, storage or similar purposes.

Mr. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a recent B.B.C. programme indicated that residential premises under his Department's control were being used for commercial purposes? Is he aware that the homeless find it distressing to hear of such premises being used for commercial purposes? Will he give an assurance that residential premises will be used only for residential purposes?

Mr. Mellish: I willingly make an offer to the hon. Gentleman. If he knows, or can get to know, of any premises that we are using for storage purposes which ought to be converted to residential purposes, I will look into the matter as quickly as possible. I am advised that the premises which we now own are in streets or in other locations which are zoned for office use in town plans and have ceased to be regarded as residential accommodation. I can do no more than make this offer to the hon. Gentleman.

Construction Industry

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effect of the Government's fiscal and monetary policies over the last 13 months on the construction industry.

Mr. Mellish: I cannot distinguish the effects of the Government's fiscal and


monetary policies from the effects of all the other factors which bear on the construction industry.

Mr. Speed: That is not a particularly helpful Answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civil engineers and others working on fixed-price contracts have been gravely hit by rising S.E.T. in the last 13 months? What concern has he about this and what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Mellish: I know all about civil engineers and fixed-price contracts. I have virtually had to live with this matter for the last few days. I am indeed concerned with the problem and I am having consultations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the part of his supplementary question concerned with S.E.T. because later Questions on the subject appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What has the right hon. Gentleman done within the Government about the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in March that house builders should be put in the priority class for loans? Will he draw the fig leaf aside on this one?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know about drawing fig leaves aside, but certainly Achilles' weakness was his heel. I could not answer that question without notice. I have given an Answer to the Question I was asked; but I will certainly see if there is anything that we can do about housing as a separate entity.

Ancient Monuments (Season Tickets)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the current annual sale of season tickets to ancient monuments for which his Department is responsible.

Mr. Mellish: About 35,000 in 1968.

Mr. Speed: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that these season tickets represent excellent value? What steps is he taking to try to increase their sale? Has he considered providing a financial incentive to members of his Department who sell them at the various sites throughout the country?

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the good will that he has shown in this matter. He is right in saying that they are good value. We advertise in the Press, in our publications and at the monuments for which we have responsibility. We are having discussions with the British Travel Association about the possibility of an overseas visitor's season ticket. We are doing all we can, but if the hon. Gentleman has any other ideas we will willingly consider them.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his Department's decision to advertise these tickets in the national Press, would he consider placing advertisements in other appropriate media, such as the publications of the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England?

Mr. Mellish: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's suggestion and I will see whether or not that can be done.

President Eisenhower (Public Memorial, London)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will set up a committee to advise him on the erection of a public memorial in London to President Eisenhower.

Mr. Mellish: I think the first thing to establish is whether there is broad public support for this proposal, and I am sure we are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stimulating interest in it.

Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering this matter, that action of this kind might do something to wipe out the unhappy memory of the Government's mishandling of this country's representation at President Eisenhower's funeral?

Mr. Mellish: That is a regrettable supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong if he thinks that special regard for President Eisenhower is had only on the benches opposite. His supplementary is not worth a reply, and I shall not give one.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not help to widen the choice of suitable sites for this and other purposes if some of the horrible statues which are now cluttering up Central London were thinned out a little?

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend may have been a little late in entering the Chamber. We dealt with that question earlier.
As my hon. Friend asked a serious supplementary question, unlike the one asked by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), it might help if I indicated that my Ministry will do all it can to promote the installation of a statute of President Eisenhower. We will do what we can to find a suitable site, and I am at the disposal of the authorities of the House in this matter.

Building Industry Metric System

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the latest estimate he has made of the economic effect on the building industry of the introduction of the metric system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: It is as yet impossible to work out a reliable estimate of cost. Much will depend on the place at which the change takes place; if it goes according to plan, increased costs should be kept to a minimum, and the counterveiling benefits will be that much greater.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain building interests have already reported that the introduction of the metric system will result in an increase of 1 per cent. in building costs, which will mean dearer homes, hospitals, clinics and so on? Would he care at this stage unequivocally to refute that claim?

Mr. Mellish: I could not refute such a claim because I am convinced that in the short term there will be increased costs. It is the long-term benefits of which there can be no doubt. It should be remembered that in the decision to go metric we have had the support of the construction industry as a whole. What the industry has already done in this connection is of great credit to it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are disturbed to hear that no estimate has been made of the cost of this, particularly since it must be a relevant part of the whole change-over? Are not the industry and the country entitled to be given some idea of what this change will cost?

Mr. Mellish: If one is to make estimates one must be sure of the facts. We must

first get the industry off the ground as it were from the point of view of going metric. We have already done an enormous amount of work in this direction. No doubt the time will arrive when we can give an honest estimate of the cost, but at this stage I cannot do that.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not a fact that whether or not we go metric the brick makers will continue to make bricks of the traditional size, 9 ins. by 4½ ins. or whatever it may be? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that those dealing with specifications involving brick work are faced with mathematical calculations involving three or four place decimals and are completely bewildered by this change? Is he also aware that bricks will not be altered in size, whatever the measurement is called?

Mr. Mellish: I trust that my hon. Friend does not think that he is the only person who has been dealing with brick problems. I have met representatives of the industry on this and other issues and I assure my hon. Friend that they have said nothing half as worrying as my hon. Friend's comments.

Construction Industry (Firm Price Contracts)

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will announce his policy on firm price contracts in relation to the construction industry.

Mr. Mellish: I am satisfied that the policy of firm price contracts in the construction industry is sound and should continue. The policy adopted by Government and recommended to public authorities is to invite tenders on a firm price basis where the contract period is two years or less and where the work has been thoroughly pre-planned.

Mr. More: Apart from the question of S.E.T., which the Minister has already referred to, can he say whether these contracts do cover all possible fluctuations in taxation? If not, how can he expect to get realistic firm price tenders if the situation is liable to be upset by Government action over taxation?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. The vast majority


of the building industry is covered by the fluctuation clauses in the R.I.B.A. form of contract; the exception is a tiny few. There is an anomaly with regard to the civil engineers, about which I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that the industry welcomes fixed price contracts in principle.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Surely the Minister will concede that since the public sector is the client for 90 per cent. of civil engineering work there must be an unanswerable case for allowing proper fluctuation clauses in respect of S.E.T?

Mr. Mellish: I am discussing the matter with other Ministers and can say no more about it, except that I am alerted to the problem.

Construction Industry (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further representations he has received about the effect on the construction industry of Selective Employment Tax; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Mellish: I invited representatives of the industry to meet me immediately after the Budget, and the effects of S.E.T. were discussed, and I have since had letters from them expressing their views.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that the industrial correspondent of the Financial Times estimates the extra burden of S.E.T. for the building industry at between £30 million and £40 million a year? Does he dispute this estimate? Does not he concede that this would put up the price of houses and reduce the rate of housing building?

Mr. Mellish: I had a Press conference the day after I met the industry, and I said that the increase of S.E.T. would be between £32 million and £35 million, and that the N.F.B.T.E. estimate of about £35 on a £5,000 house is about right.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way in which this extra twist will mean that thousands more will leave the construction industry to be self-employed, and of the disastrous effect this has on the trade union movement?

Will he discuss this problem with his fellow Ministers with a view to introducing an Amendment in Committee on the Finance Bill?

Mr. Mellish: I am aware of the danger of labour-only sub-contractors, whose numbers are growing. It is hoped very much that we shall be able to bring legislation before the House which will deal with that as a quite separate problem from S.E.T.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not the Minister concerned from another point of view? It costs an employer £6 to get an operative on the site before he even does a stroke of work. Having given the industry a very sympathetic impression with regard to its case over S.E.T., will the Minister now show it some action?

Mr. Mellish: I have already said that I understand the industry's point of view. Representations are being made to other Ministers concerned. I can say no more than that at present.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister really going to refrain from mentioning the effect on jobs as a result of S.E.T.? In particular, is he prepared to say that there will be no decrease in the number of jobs in this industry in Scotland as a result of the increase in S.E.T.?

Mr. Mellish: The industry is one in which output improved by an average of 4 per cent. over the past five or six years with a lower labour force.

Mrs. Ewing: That is no answer.

Mr. Mellish: I am answering the question as a whole; the hon. Lady asked me a question and she must wait for the answer. I am telling her that we are doing more work with fewer men employed, because the industry is becoming more mechanically-minded, using modern techniques and producing more with fewer men. I should have thought that the whole nation wanted that as a principle.

Mrs. Ewing: That means fewer jobs.

Brick Stocks

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a further statement about brick stocks.

Mr. Mellish: At the end of March stocks of bricks were provisionally estimated at 947 million.

Mr. Goodhart: As brick production is lower than in September, 1964, when the Prime Minister called for a dramatic increase in production, should not manufacturers be producing more bricks? But as brick stocks are now at an all-time record high, what will manufacturers do with the extra bricks?

Mr. Mellish: I dealt with this matter the last time I answered Questions. The industry produces X number of bricks. I did not ask it to produce that number. It did it because it expected a certain demand, and its anticipations were wrong. This is a private enterprise sector of industry, and I am not responsible for any over-estimation it makes.

Sir Frank Pearson: Does the Minister recognise that the brick industry has had the worst winter in living memory and that many firms have been forced into bankruptcy? Could he give any indication as to how he sees brick stocks being gradually run down over the next two or three months?

Mr. Mellish: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, one problem has been the appalling weather, certainly in the early part of this year. The brick stocks built up. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether we can have earlier starts inside the public sector, because I want to help the industry. I am not so much concerned with the immediate future. It is the present that I am concerned with.

Building Works (1970s)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of demand in building works in the 1970s, in the light of recent monetary measures.

Mr. Mellish: Demand for new work is likely to increase at an average annual rate of about 4 per cent. in 1969 and 1970, and I have no reason for thinking that the rate of increase in the 1970s will be very different.

Mr. Peyton: How does the Minister see such an increase in the construction programme being financed, in view of

the very stringent measures now in force? Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit to some serious concern as to the plight of small builders, who face an almost insurmountable problem?

Mr. Mellish: The plight of the small builder has always been difficult. As we move into the 1970s, they will have a bigger tussle, whatever Government are in power, because more and more work is being done by fewer and fewer but larger firms. This is the present trend in the industry. I hope very much that the Government's legislation on the improvement of older houses will give smaller builders some work that they have previously been denied.

Building Industry (British Standard Time)

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers about British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give details of the representations he has received from the building industry about increased costs and loss of productivity on building sites as a result of British Standard Time; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further action is to be taken arising out of Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the representation made to him by builders regarding British Standard Time.

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further representations he has received from builders about British Standard Time; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Mellish: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 24th March, 1969.—[Vol. 780, c. 233.]

Mr. Clegg: Is it not increasingly clear that B.S.T. is increasing costs and slowing down production? Can we afford


that? Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Home Secretary to bring forward the review?

Mr. Mellish: The National Federation of Building Trade Employers prepared a memorandum at my request about British Standard Time, which came before my National Consultative Council. It was discussed there, and as a consequence I have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the N.F.B.T.E.'s concern.

Mr. Waddington: Has it not been made clear to the Minister in the memorandum to which he referred that it is not only the employers who object to B.S.T., because of its effect on costs, but also the employees, who object on grounds of convenience?

Mr. Mellish: It is perfectly fair to say that the unions agree with the employers, although for not quite the same reasons. The unions thought that many more sites should have much greater illumination anyway. The National Consultative Council was not completely unanimous that British Standard Time should be stopped.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Did not the memorandum show that not only had productivity declined as a result of B.S.T. but that the accident rate had increased? As the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have been unable to make any impression on the mulish obstinacy of the Home Secretary in the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman renew his effort to get the Home Secretary to think again—and quickly?

Mr. Mellish: I am generally reluctant to draw conclusions from short-term movements in the accident rate, because it fluctuates considerably from year to year and at various periods, and I would not like to say that the increase in the accident rate is due to B.S.T. My right hon. Friend will have to look at these fluctuations nationally when considering British Standard Time.

Mr. Williams: Whilst the right hon. Gentleman is obviously very proud of the industry's increased production and efficiency, does he not recognise that British Standard Time reduces the efficiency of the industry for which he is responsible?

Mr. Mellish: The industry has a special point of view, and has a right to express it. It has done so, and I have put it forward to the appropriate quarters. I can do no more.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the results of the survey, is it not time the Minister pressed the Government specifically that the assessment be turned into a full-scale review, perhaps leading to the abandonment of British Standard Time in the two darkest months?

Mr. Mellish: Those are the sort of questions which must be asked of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It must be said, in fairness to him, that he has to consider the effect of B.S.T. not simply from the construction industry point of view, important as that is, but from the point of view of the country as a whole. There is no unanimous view on this side of the House, and I doubt whether there is on the opposite side.

Construction Industry (Equipment)

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the construction industry about difficulties in relation to obtaining scaffolding and other equipment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.

Mr. Clegg: Does not the Minister think it worth looking into the matter, since there seems to be delay?

Mr. Mellish: I have close contact with the industry and if such problems exist the industry will tell me. There is another side to this question. The Construction Industry Training Board wanted to set up a scaffolding course. I should have thought that was a simple enough proposition, but it had to consult over 20 different organisations before it could get it off the ground.

Winter Building Techniques

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the use of winter building techniques.

Mr. Mellish: My Department is continuing its campaign to bring home to builders the benefits of using winter building techniques and equipment through


films, press articles, lectures and exhibitions. This campaign is backed by research effort to ensure that the information disseminated is fully up to date.

Mr. Kitson: Is not the expansion of winter building hindered by the difficulty of obtaining investment grants for equipment as a result of the present discretionary grant system and the confusion which this causes?

Mr. Mellish: No, that is not true. I know that some individual firms would say this, and I know that there are anomalies with the smaller pieces of equipment which do not qualify. But those firms that have embarked on winter building equipment get the investment grants on a broader base, and they find this an enormous advantage. Many firms are now swinging over to using these modern techniques.

Construction Industry (Budgetary Measures)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the effect on the construction industry of the latest budgetary measures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his percentage estimate of the increase in cost to the construction industry of the latest Budget proposals.

Mr. Mellish: The direct effect of the Budget proposals will be an increase of about 0·75 per cent. in construction costs.
A local authority house costing £3,000 to erect will cost the builder about £25 more.

Mr. Marten: In view of the replies which the Minister gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Speed) and Ludlow (Mr. More) on the subject of Selective Employment Tax and his talks with the Chancellor, does not he agree that where the Government are one party to a contract it is grossly inequitable that they should increase S.E.T.?

Mr. Mellish: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier reply. I explained that the 50 per cent. of the building industry employed on

Government contracts is covered by the fluctuation clause. Let us have credit where credit is due. The problem is with civil engineering and—if I have said it once this afternoon I have said it three or four times—I am in discussion on this with my colleagues in the Government.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister reconsider that reply and admit that he has misled the House? How can he make an assessment of the extra cost when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not tell us the extra contributions which will be needed to pay for the increase in pensions? The Minister has already said that £35 will be added to the cost of a house by Selective Employment Tax. How can he suggest that the total figure will be less when it will have to include all the other expenses, including the 2d. a gallon on petrol?

Mr. Mellish: With repect, the hon. Gentleman is the last person who should be talking to me about misleading the House. If the Press is correct, within minutes of the Chancellor making his Budget Statement the hon. Gentleman ran upstairs to his Committee and informed his colleagues that he had done his sums and that £100 would be added to the cost of a £5,000 house as a result of S.E.T. He was £65 out. He cannot even add up right!

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the Minister realise that whereas he is being pressed from the other side of the House about the marginal effect of £25 on the cost of a £4,000 house because of S.E.T., we do not hear from the other side about the enormous cost of the land required for building the house, which might account for a quarter of the cost of a £4,000 house? The enormous inflation of land value is a major factor in the inflated value of houses.

Mr. Mellish: It must also go on record that in the last four or five years the output of the building industry has increased by thousands of millions of pounds worth of work. The construction industry has done this work and has gained profits as a consequence.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister has said three times that he is consulting other Departments on the problems of the building industry. He sponsors the industry; what the House would like to hear


is that he is battling for it. In view of the squeeze on bank loans, increased mortgage interest rates, increased S.E.T., and the extra contributions, does the Minister realise that the industry is being clobbered to a point which is dangerous for the nation?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the construction industry, like many other industries, wants to be exempt from all matters affecting the economic difficulties of this nation. We are a debtor nation and we must get out of debt. When we do, the nation's construction output will go up and the industry will do better than it has ever done before.

British Museum (Library Site)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what parts of the site previously allocated for the British Museum's library have been sold or are being offered for sale.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir. As I indicated in the House on 27th November, 1967, I am awaiting the Dainton Committee Report before taking action to dispose of the properties my Ministry has acquired by voluntary purchase.—[Vol. 755, c. 8–9.]

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to those who are interested in the welfare of the British Museum?

National Consultative Council (Heating and Ventilating Trade)

Mr. Waddington: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by what means the heating and ventilating trade is represented on his National Consultative Council.

Mr. Mellish: The Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association is a Constituent of the Committee of Associations of Specialist Engineering Contractors, which has two seats on the National Consultative Council.

Mr. Waddington: As the representation described by the Minister shows how closely linked is the heating industry with the building industry, is he happy about the decision of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to forbid a three-year wage agreement

in the building industry and to allow a three-year wage agreement in the heating industry?

Mr. Mellish: I thought that question would arise, although it is not related to the Question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman must ask the First Secretary of State. I did not award the increase; she did.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of recent studies in the building industry on the advantage of increasing the amount of insulation materials in the roof and walls of buildings, and will he tell us the views of his Ministry on this?

Mr. Mellish: The report on condensation and insulation has just been completed, and I am quite willing to send a copy to the hon. Gentleman and to make a copy available to the House. The heating and ventilating industry will be in great demand and will have at its disposal more new techniques than ever before.

Roundwood Park, Willesden (Site)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he estimates the former prefab site adjoining Roundwood Park, Willesden, will be completely cleared and the land ready for reinstating.

Mr. Mellish: Clearance, if carried out separately from reinstatement, could probably be completed by mid-August, 1969.

Mr. Pavitt: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which his Department has responded to my representations during the last year and facilitated this matter? Is there any way by which he can encourage the Wembley-orientated Borough Council to expedite the development of this site for the benefit of the people of Willesden?

Mr. Mellish: I am prepared to do anything if my hon. Friend puts forward a practical proposition. I am glad that my Ministry has received one complimentary remark this afternoon.

Mann Committee's Reports

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made with his review of the Mann


Reports; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his consultations with the building trade unions concerning the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: My consultations with the unions are being conducted on a wider basis than the contents of the second and third Reports of the Mann Committee. Discussions on the use of directly employed labour in my Ministry have now reached a definitive stage and I hope to make a statement very soon. Consultations on a possible productivity agreement are also in progress.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for at long last telling the House that he is about to come and explain to it the results of the Mann Report. I would have hoped that he could have done this before. Did not he recently make a Press statement concerning the number of people employed in his Department and does not he think that the proper place to make such a statement is in the House?

Mr. Mellish: The Report of the Mann Committee was sent to the Minister of the day, and I regard it as confidential to me as Minister. As I have already told the House, it was a sample survey of a very few depots in my Ministry. Based upon the judgment of the Mann Committee, I have now conducted a national survey, on which I carried the unions with me, and I am not prepared, just to please the hon. Gentleman's political view, to publish the Mann Committee's Reports which, in my view, are not indicative of the Ministry as a whole.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If, as the Minister said, this matter is confidential to him, why should the Press be treated to his confidence before the House?

Mr. Mellish: The Press have not been treated to any confidence. That I have said to the Press that I employ directly 32,000 people has no bearing on the Mann Committee's Reports. Anyone in the House who took an interest in my Ministry would be aware of this.

Construction Industry (Metrication)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Public Buildings and Works what further progress has been made towards metrication in the construction industry.

Mr. Mellish: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a similar question from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on 11 th March—[Vol. 779, c. 1159.] Steady progress is being made in accordance with the agreed metrication programme.

Mr. Rossi: In the absence of progress by this Board, which was announced in July last, and which the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend stated would meet in March, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the great unhappiness in the construction industry at being left out on a limb in this fashion?

Mr. Mellish: It is not so despondent as all that. In fact, the construction industry has set up its own machinery to deal with metrication. It will welcome the setting up of the Board, and it is important that upon that Board there is a construction representative who will earn the respect of the rest of the industry. I have endeavoured to do that, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will make a statement shortly.

Trafalgar Square (Floodlighting)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what improvements he proposes to make to the floodlighting in Trafalgar Square.

Mr. Mellish: A more modern and comprehensive scheme of floodlighting has been installed in the Square which it will be my pleasure to inaugurate this evening. I believe it will make a dramatic impact on the Square. The scheme has been designed by the Society of Illuminating Engineers and will mark the Jubilee Year of the Society. I am most grateful to it for its contribution and for the ready co-operation of the High Commissioner for Canada, the Ambassador for South Africa and the Vicar of St. Martin-in-the-Fields.

Mr. MacNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has earned the congratulations of the whole House for the


immense step forward in lighting the capital city, and is he also aware that the work of his Ministry is a credit to him and to the Government? Can he say what support he gets from local authorities and private interests with a view to finding some of the necessary capital?

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. I think that most people will agree that a good effort has been made in cleaning up and improving Whitehall. I think that we have done a good job, and I think that most people will agree with me. I have had consultations with the Lord Mayor of Westminster, who has readily agreed to try to get the co-operation and good will of private individuals, and I am meeting a number of very important business people to ask them if they will clean their buildings, too.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House congratulates him on the excellent job which has been done in cleaning up the exterior of Whitehall? What is now needed is a start on the interior.

Mr. Mellish: Having been a Member of this House for 22 years, I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that it is better than it ever was under his party's rule.

Government Construction Contracts (Heating and Ventilating Work)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by what means his Department employs heating and ventilating contractors on Government construction projects; and in accordance with which agreements the operatives are paid.

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the increase in productivity by operatives engaged in heating and ventilating work on Government construction contracts in 1969.

Mr. Mellish: On Government construction projects heating and ventilating work is generally undertaken by nominated sub-contractors. The nomination will usually be made after competitive tenders have been invited from firms selected from the Ministry's approved list of specialist sub-contractors.
The contractors pay wages in accordance with the national wage agreements for the trade, but actual payments are their responsibility. I cannot, therefore, estimate the increase in productivity by operatives in this section of the industry in 1969.

Mr. Williams: While thanking the Minister for that reply, perhaps I should avail myself of the opportunity to accept his invitation and refer this question to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary.

Building Costs

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by What means his Department collects and records information as to movements in building costs.

Mr. Mellish: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) on 11th March, 1969.—[Vol. 779, c. 1160]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the present resources of the right hon. Gentleman's statistical branch adequate to keep pace with all the cost increases resulting from a Budget which is most damaging to the building industry?

Mr. Mellish: All that I can say is that the resources available to the industry are appreciated very much by the industry itself.

Steel Deliveries (East Midlands)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he received during March from specialised engineering contractors regarding delays in deliveries of steel in the East Midlands area; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence he received during March from specialist engineering contractors regarding delays in deliveries of steel in the East Midlands area; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir, but at a meeting of the East Midland Regional Joint Committee held on 20th February, 1969, a representative of specialist engineering contractors mentioned, without giving


details, that there had been delays in the delivery of steel of up to 12 weeks.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking the Minister for that reply, is he aware that engineers in the East Midlands are concerned about delays of 12 weeks since the nationalisation of steel? What is to be done about it?

Mr. Mellish: As no details of complaints were provided, no further action was taken. If the hon. Gentleman has details and cares to send them to me, I will undertake to investigate them.

Mr. Allason: Is the Minister aware that the construction industry in the East Midlands is working substantially below capacity because of the shortage of steel? Can he tell us whether there is any connection between this and the forthcoming increase in steel prices?

Mr. Mellish: I doubt that very much. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaints, I extend the same invitation to him. If he will let me have details in writing, I will investigate them properly without these rumours across the Floor of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (LOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will initiate an independent inquiry into the feasibility of transferring to Scotland the headquarters of some of the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I do not think such an inquiry is needed. The nationalised industries are already well aware of the need to take account of dispersal and regional development policy so far as is consistent with the continued efficiency of their operations.

Mr. Hamilton: That Answer is not very satisfactory. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is no case, for instance, for the headquarters of the National Coal Board to be in London? How much coal is produced in London? To take other examples, how much steel is produced in London? How much forestry is produced in London and the South-East? All these Boards could and should be situated in development areas

—if not in Scotland in some other development areas.

The Prime Minister: The Forestry Commission is about to move from London. The great proportion of the employees of the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation are outside London but, with the increasing need for discussion on matters such as fuel policy, with which this House is greatly concerned, it is necessary for the headquarters to be here. But I have met the chairmen of the nationalised industries and urged upon them the need to decentralise their activities and their purchasing policies as far as possible.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the successful precedent concerning a Government Department in 1963, when it was decided to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, thereby providing 6,000 jobs?

The Prime Minister: We are well aware of that example. That has been going through over a period of time and is being supplemented.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the North and East of Scotland are very badly treated in this way and that it is very important to spread trade, industry, commerce and employment more evenly throughout Scotland, instead of having it concentrated in the South-West?

The Prime Minister: That is what we are seeking to do, and with considerable success. However, the Question relates to the headquarters of the nationalised industries, and even my hon. and learned Friend, with his well-known enthusiasm for the area which he represents, would hardly suggest that it would be right to decentralise the headquarters responsibility of publicly-owned industries quite as far as that. We have recently sent a second Inland Revenue computer centre to Scotland, but not as far north as my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister telling us that the nationalised industries in Scotland have sufficient autonomy? Is not the position still that decisions which end up threatening the consumer's pocket are made elsewhere? Does he not realise that promises of decentralisation are empty unless they are followed by action at repeated intervals?

The Prime Minister: But, on the basis of everything that the hon. Lady has put to us since coming to the House, she would not have the benefit of any nationalised industries, since her policy is to have only Scottish-owned industries. The decentralisation policy of Her Majesty's Government applies to United Kingdom publicly-owned ventures and enterprises.

Mr. Heath: While agreeing with the Prime Minister on the last part of his answer, may I ask him whether he is prepared to examine the question with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to seeing whether more powers can be devolved on the regional organisation of the Board of Trade in Scotland to deal particularly with development applications arising there?

The Prime Minister: I looked into this question myself when I was in Scotland, and I discussed it with the Economic Planning Council of which my right hon. Friend is the Chairman. A great deal of further decentralisation has taken place, and we have examined among others the question which has been a thorn in the flesh of successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, including my right hon. Friend and myself, of more speedy decisions in connection with the work of B.O.T.A.C., which is of vital importance to Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the situation about the Forestry Commission is totally indefensible? The headquarters has gone out of London only as far as Basingstoke. As the majority of its work is in Scotland, is it not important to get the headquarters out of the South-East of England into Scotland? Most jobs are in the North. Will the Prime Minister consider having the headquarters moved to Edinburgh or to some other place in the North?

The Prime Minister: Very careful consideration was given to whether the headquarters could be located in Scotland. In the end it was decided that it could not be located there. On the other hand, in terms of employment, as opposed to the small staff involved, the right hon. Gentleman will have welcomed the big increase in the planting programme in Scotland decided upon by the Government.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. As my question was not answered by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—as he answered a different Question, I give notice that this must be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order Notice must be given in the conventional way.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I wondered whether England comes into any discussion in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question was about Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT SAVINGS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination between those Departments responsible for furthering the campaign of import savings.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this matter.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing problem of the balance of payments is largely due to our inability to cut imports? Will he say whether he is satisfied with the progress which has been made in import substitution since 1964?

The Prime Minister: In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed concern about the continuing increase in imports which has been going on from the early 1950s at a pretty rapid rate, and he also expressed disappointment about the failure of import substitution to pick up following devaluation.
At the same time, while I recognise that the import deposit scheme has been in existence, imports in the last three months are less than 1 per cent. above the average for February-April last year, which suggests some halting in the process, but it needs to go a good deal further. However, it takes time to build up the capacity of the import-saving industries.

Sir C. Osborne: How much import saving does the Prime Minister think will be achieved in the coming year?

The Prime Minister: That will be difficult to quantify, but my right hon. Friend, who, as he said last night, has given a great many more figures and forecasts on these matters than in the past, dealt with that in his Budget speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his conversations with the President of the National Farmers' Union; and what consideration was given to the question of agricultural levies.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply given on my behalf to Questions by the hon. Members for Westmoreland (Mr. Jopling) and Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 27th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1791–92.]

Mr. Marten: In the light of that reply, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that the present system of subsidies has served the county well? If we are to get real expansion of agriculture in this country, is not the only answer to go over to some form of levy system?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This Question relates to my conversations with the President of the National Farmers' Union. He put the case for increased Government expenditure on subsidies with great vigour. But I found, as I suspected, that his organisation thinks even less of the Opposition's proposals than we do. Therefore, it is hardly the case that the farmers of this country feel that they would give a sustained increase in agricultural expansion. What is clear from the Opposition's proposals is that they would lead to a prodigious increase in food prices.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his conversations with Mr. Williams included discussion on the bitterly vexed question about which farmers in the foot-and-mouth disease areas feel very badly, namely, the settlement of the £-for-£ claim on the foot-and-mouth outbreak?

The Prime Minister: That has been discussed with him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It did not arise in the particular meeting referred to in the

Question. It is a difficult problem, and we are still looking into it. It was envisaged that the general farming community would contribute and that the Government would meet it £-for-£. When the general farming community provided so little money, we had the situation that farmers on the spot would put up the money on condition that for each £ they put up they would get a back. This raises the difficult question of control of public expenditure.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will my right hon. Friend say what would be the effect on food prices of accepting the Conservative Party's policy on import levies?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that it is necessary to waste time and money studying these proposals, but they were effectively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a speech, I think in his constituency, a few weeks ago.

Mr. Heath: When the Prime Minister talks of a prodigious rise in food prices as a result of the Opposition's agricultural policy, may I ask whether he realises that that is only one-third of the increase to which the Prime Minister and his colleagues are committed by application to enter the Common Market? Does he further realise that an increase of about 1 per cent. a year for three to five years is only one-sixth of the increase in the cost of living under this Government in 1968?

The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are so prodigiously wrong on every issue that comes before the House, as was shown last night by his quite "scatty" calculations about saving and the Budget.
On the more serious part of his question relating to entry into the Common Market, I have answered that before in answer to a supplementary. If we were to succeed in our application there would have to be fundamental changes in agricultural policy and prices. I do not think that we have made any secret of that. Exactly how much would be involved no one can begin to calculate, because the price review system is due to be recalculated by the Six this year. In these circumstances, we should have all the


advantages of the industrial effects, because of our industrial exports, but to go into this situation voluntarily, as the right hon. Gentleman does, seems sensational lunacy.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister be a little more specific and helpful? In view of the Government's belated conversion to the idea of applying to join the European Common Market, are we to take it that they are opposed to the levy system operating in European agriculture at the moment and will accept it only grudgingly if they go into Europe?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said and to what was said in the debate. I have said that if we join we accept the basis of the Common Market agricultural policy, but we have to negotiate a number of things arising out of it. First, they have to settle the price levels—and there is great pressure to bring them down, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, now that they are feeding butter to cows—and, secondly, we should have to settle the whole basis of the payments to the central fund from this country. We should be prepared to contemplate all that in return for the great industrial and technological advantages, but not to indulge in them in advance of joining the Common Market as an act of political masochism, such as the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) proposes.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend at last realise that there is no longer agreement between the two Front Benches about entering the Common Market? The observation of the Leader of the Opposition indicates that at last he sees the error of his ways. In those circumstances, would it not be proper to sink this grotesque and fantastic conception without trace?

The Prime Minister: I did not read that into the right hon. Gentleman's Question. The difference between us is that, while we all recognise, whether we favour the application to join the E.E.C. or not, that there will be a high agricultural price to be paid by this country, to be offset in other ways, economic and political, the view of the right hon. Member for Bexley, I think, is to start on a limited scale to accept the price of

joining the Common Market in advance of getting the advantages.

Mr. Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the advantages which he gets from a change-over to the levy system, with a very limited rise in prices, is a saving on the balance of payments of imports of £250 million a year, which he cannot get in any other way? This is the advantage of the system. At the same time, he also gives the Chancellor a saving in revenue, to give people incentives and help, through the social services, to those who need it.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept those arguments and, although the farmers would have liked us to spend a good deal more of the taxpayers' money on the subsidies, they do not accept those arguments either. They totally reject the right hon. Gentleman's view in this matter. Although I am always impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in promising to cut various forms of Government expenditure and to hand it all out to pensioners and others, I remember that, when they abolished food subsidies in 1951, the pensioners did not get any of it.

MR. GERALD BROOKE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information to give the House about Mr. Gerald Brooke.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): In an article in Izvestiya on 28th December, 1967, it was hinted that fresh charges might be brought against Mr. Brooke. Since then we have frequently impressed on the Soviet authorities the very serious consequences which any retrial of Mr. Brooke would have for Anglo-Soviet relations. I myself last spoke to the Soviet Ambassador about this on 1st April.
In yesterday's Evening News it was again suggested that fresh charges were to be brought against Mr. Brooke. We made immediate inquiries of the Soviet Embassy about this report but without result. I also instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to pursue the matter with the Soviet Government, and I await his report.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the House will be willing to await the further report from the right hon. Gentleman and will be glad that he has taken the action which he has described.

Mr. James Davidson: Have the Soviet Union offered the slightest shred of evidence that there is a basis for a retrial of Mr. Gerald Brooke?

Mr. Stewart: We have no reason to believe that there is any such basis.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now think that giving away £500,000 of the money deposited in the Bank of England by the Baltic States to the Russian Government was a thoroughly bad investment?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has taken a different course from that recommended by his right hon. Friend, and it is not a wiser course. The Bill in question was carefully considered by the House. It involved many other considerations than that involved in this question. The House decided to give it a Second Reading. I do not believe that the hon. Member's question is of any use at all to Anglo-Soviet relations or to Mr. Brooke.

Sir C. Osborne: Would it not be better if no further questions were asked on this matter, because questions at present could make a very delicate position a great deal worse?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Bernadette Josephine Devlin, for Mid-Ulster.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said before that it is out of order for the House to be jealous.

LABELLING OF FOOD AND TOILET PREPARATIONS

3.37 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer powers in relation to the provision of information or instructions on the sale of food and toilet preparations; and for purposes connected therewith.
I ask the indulgence of the House for having chosen the wrong day to present this Bill, but it is an important subject. Food labelling has greatly improved since I introduced the first Labelling of Food Bill in February 1965, due to the Government's own food labelling Regulations and the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act, which I greatly welcome. It might, therefore, be felt that nothing further need be done, but this would be a mistake, since a number of loopholes still remain in food labelling Regulations and others will be discovered as knowledge of food processing is extended.
For this reason, the Bill differs from the previous Bills which I brought in, in that it is an enabling Bill, giving powers to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Social Services to take into account changes in the law and to make Orders for provision of information or the making of instructions by label when food is sold.
In particular, the existing food Regulations do not require manufacturers to specify the names of the additives which they use. Although the types of additives and the amounts which may be added to food are controlled for the most part, consumers have a right to know exactly which additives are being used in the preparation of the ever-increasing numbers of foods in which they are found. Thousands of these additives are already in use as colours, flavourings, emulsifiers, humectants, preservatives and so on and I am informed by the trade that the number at present in use is small in comparison with the flood which we may expect in the next few years.
While each tiny amount of additive in itself may not be harmful, no one knows what is the effect on health of taking all these minute amounts of chemicals in almost every food and beverage every day. Therefore, it is essential that the most specific information possible should


be given to the consumer. The importance of this is illustrated by the case of cyclamates, the artificial sweeteners, in regard to which disquieting reports of recent studies accompanied by improved labelling regulations have recently become available from the United States.
In this country a maximum advisable daily intake of cyclamates is recommended, yet labels do not have to disclose the presence of this additive or give the quantity in which it is present, simply that the product contains an artificial sweetener. A special provision of this Bill would enable Ministers to close this loophole.
In addition, two particular consumer demands are met. First, there are provisions to ensure that the date by which any vacuum-packed food should be consumed is shown on the pack. Secondly, frozen foods will indicate, by an ingenious device, whether or not there has been any material and therefore possibly harmful rise in temperature before such foods reach the consumer.
The Bill would extend its provisions in regard to disclosure of additives to a wide range of toilet preparations. The colours and other chemicals used in cosmetics may affect health—through the skin, through the mouth in the case of lipsticks, and through the eyes in the case of eye-shadow—almost as much as the additives used in foods. At the very least they may aggravate allergies in particular people who at present have no means of identifying such substances.
The volume of toilet preparations of all kinds now in use is almost unbelievable. In case any hon. Gentleman may feel superior about the vanity of women in this respect, I would remind them that male cosmetics are now big business and sales are booming.
That there is public demand for this Bill is shown by the fact that the National Association for Health, of which I am an officer, the body which prepared this Bill, has the support of 500,000 signatories to a petition in support of its principles. The Consumer Council, which assisted in preparing the Bill, also has given support, as has a wide range of organisations of size and status such as the National Union of Townswomens' Guilds.
Consumer questions are often regarded as being somewhat trivial in comparison with great matters of State which come before the House, and particularly on a day like this one sometimes feels that what one is saying is out of place. But no one should underestimate the importance of the health and happiness of the individual. Much of this health and happiness depends on the food we eat. It is because I believe that the right to choose the food we eat, with full knowledge of the facts, is so important, that I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Braddock, Sir Stephen McAdden, Mr. Farr, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Thorpe, Miss Joan Lestor and Mr. Gardner.

LABELLING OF FOOD AND TOILET PREPARATIONS

Bill to confer powers in relation to the provision of information or instructions on the sale of food and toilet preparations; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 2nd May and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member to move the Adjournment Motion, may I remind the House that many Members not only from Northern Ireland but also from England and Scotland wish to speak in this brief but important debate. From time to time I appeal for short speeches, and sometimes the House responds; I hope that it will do so today.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
You were kind enough yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to grant me leave, under Standing Order No. 9, to move the Adjournment of the House in connection with the situation in Londonderry and the stationing of troops at key installations in Northern Ireland. I should like to take


the opportunity of being the first Member of the House to welcome the new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The events in Northern Ireland this weekend are a classic illustration of unheeded warnings from my hon. Friends on this side of the House. An almost uncontrollable situation has developed because too little has been done too late.
In the debate on Northern Ireland on 22nd February, 1965, before this situation had developed, I then advocated the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the grievances in Northern Ireland.
Alas, the time for Royal Commissions is past. And the fault lies largely with hon. Gentlemen opposite from Northern Ireland, who on that occasion flatly refused to acknowledge that there was any cause for concern or anxiety at all about civil rights and discrimination in Northern Ireland. They were rightly concerned with the potato subsidy. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) informed the House that 36 per cent. of the nation's pigs come from Northern Ireland. But not a word about discrimination or civil rights. We also faced the convention of non-interference, a convention which in that debate prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what, apart from Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff, we could mention in a debate on Northern Ireland.
That convention is dead. It was killed when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was seen by millions of television viewers, his head streaming with blood after a vicious batoning while surrounded by a group of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If anybody challenges that statement I have a photograph with me which illustrates the point.
It is the tragedy of this situation—I cannot stress too much the delicacy of the situation today—that it was not until heads were broken in Londonderry that the attention of the British Press, public and Parliament was focused on Northern Ireland. It was not until violence again erupted in Derry and other parts of Northern Ireland this weekend that the

Unionist Chief Whip announced the possibility of universal suffrage in local government elections, a principal plank in the civil rights campaign.
Why should it be necessary to wait until a situation is out of control before elementary demands for human rights are met by the Unionist establishment? Formerly references to the John Bull's political slum or the deep south of British politics were the prerogative of an occasional article in the quality Sunday newspapers.
There were far too few people with the foresight to see what was on the horizon in Northern Ireland. Perhaps Captain O'Neill was one of them, but his tragedy is that he has failed to take a firm grip of his own party and carry through the much needed reforms at a time when their passage might significantly have affected the course of events in Northern Ireland. Now he is seen as a man on the run; as a man who is forced into one reluctant concession after another as the civil rights movement gains momentum and as a man caught in the cross-fire because of the even more violent reaction of the Paisleyite extremists I hear that the arch-demagogue Paisley has ordered his men into the streets. As The Times correspondent wrote yesterday:
One of the immediate dangers shown up by the week's events is that the extreme Protestants are apparently inflamed both with anger and some fear at Miss Bernadette Devlin's success at the Mid-Ulster by-election and that groups of them are apparently still being organised and led on almost military lines in the sort of counter demonstrations that always bring about the worst form of street riots.
For me, violence from whatever side it comes must be deplored by this House. There is a grave danger that the obduracy of the Unionist establishment has created a situation in which the responsible leaders of the civil rights movement are now losing control over their own followers, who are becoming more and more inflamed by the grievances that they have voiced.
Where does the blame lie? I ask hon. Members to go to Strabane and see one-third of the adult population unemployed, or to go to Newry and see boys who have never worked and who have very little prospect of getting jobs, not only because of blind economic forces which


occur elsewhere, but because of a system of discrimination in employment which stigmatises them from the day they leave school. They should go to Dungannon and see housing estates segregated as though they were something dreamt up by the warped mind of a Dr. Vorster.
They should go to Derry and see the symbol of Unionist power gerrymandered in such a way that it allows just over one-third of the population to exercise control over the majority of the people of that city. They should go to the now legendary Bogside area and see the squalor and desperation that has made Derry the symbol for Northern Ireland that Jarrow was for the British Labour movement in the '30s. This is a city where houses cannot be built in two small wards for fear of upsetting the political power of the Unionist establishment in the area.
When the police go into Bogside they receive a reception which only an occupying Power would receive, and their brutality on occasion has been attested to, certainly to my satisfaction, by onlookers who have been present when civil rights marches have taken place and by many residents of the area.
Writing in the Observer last weekend, Mary Holland described how two policemen pinned a boy of about 15 in a shop doorway while a third policeman batoned him in the stomach and how an old man, on coming out of a public house, was batoned to the ground by a policeman, who went on beating him about the head.
Violence has escalated on both sides and, with all the authority that I can summon—it is bound to be limited, coming from someone on this side of the Irish Sea—as Chairman of the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster and having supported this campaign since I first came to the House, I appeal for calm and an end to violence in Northern Ireland.
What has burning post offices to do with what was a moral crusade for the elementary right to a house and for the right to vote at a local government election, which 26,000 of our citizens—citizens of the United Kingdom—are currently denied, where there is this fantastic system of company votes which allows one person in Derry to exercise 52 votes in local government elections?

What has it to do with the allocation of houses on a sectarian basis by party bosses?
The situation in Northern Ireland is bad, but it is not yet an Alabama or a Prague. While there can be no passive acceptance of injustice, of the continued strangle-hold of the Orange Order and of the Unionist Party, which deliberately stimulates sectarianism to divide citizen from citizen, I do not believe that the case for civil rights will be best advanced by violence.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while he has called for calm he is using words in a way that is like putting petrol on flames?

Mr. Rose: I called, with all the authority that I could summon, limited though it is, for calm and an end to violence on both sides in Northern Ireland. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, what will?
As I was saying, I do not believe that the aims of the civil rights movement can be best achieved by violence, because in the end those who will suffer will be those who have for too long been oppressed. A generation has grown up in Northern Ireland who are not prepared any longer to tolerate the kind of mediaeval bigotry that one sees in the graffiti on the walls of Belfast asking us to 'Remember 1690', along with various obscenities about the Pope and the Queen. The new generation is concerned with 1969 and the fact that we in Britain cannot sign the European Convention on Human Rights in its entirety because of the situation in Northern Ireland, and in particular because of the position under the Special Powers Act.
It has been said that the South African Government would give its right arm for the Special Powers Act; for the right to arrest without warrant, to imprison without charge or trial and deny recourse to habeas corpus or a court of law, to permit punishment such as flogging, to deny the claim to trial by jury, to do any act involving interference with the rights of private property, to prevent the access of relatives or legal advisers to a person in prison held without trial and to prevent and prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death. These powers exist under the Special


Powers Act in a part of the United Kingdom over which this Parliament has control.
Let us get one thing clear; we are not talking today about the Border but about civil rights. The Border may have been a tragedy and evil, but it is there, and Mr. O'Higgins of the Fine Gael Party in the Republic of Ireland recently stated his position. He said that his party was opposed to force as a means to end partition. Nevertheless, I understand that the Republic of Ireland naturally has a legitimate interest in the situation. I hope that any talks that take place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Lynch will be fruitful in this respect. I believe that this is a British problem and not a United Nations one.
I consider that the Border will wither away when people of all denominations in Northern Ireland rediscover a common bond of humanity. It will not be removed by senseless acts of violence like the explosion at the Silent Valley Reservoir in the Mourne Mountains, probably a misnomer, or electricity pylons near Armagh. There are too many borders in people's minds that must be broken down and the only way to deal with this situation is to see that everybody in Northern Ireland has the same rights as every member of the community in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Let us follow the example of Mid-Ulster and accept the issue which faces Northern Ireland as it was stated at that election; that it is not a question of the Border but a question of whether we shall give to the people of Northern Ireland the same rights and privileges that we expect on this side of the Irish Sea. It is as simple at that.
It is no good saying that we cannot ensure this. The Government have their hands full with, for example, Mr. Lardner Burke and the International Monetary Fund, but this is a part of the United Kingdom over which we have ultimate control under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. We cannot remedy all the grievances at once. We cannot immediately remedy the manifest discrimination against Catholics in the legal profession, in the top Civil Service or against Catholic and Labour members and trade union representatives on Government

bodies. I do not have time to detail the figures. However, we have enough power, certainly financially—with the £120 million subsidy, through strings which can be attached to Government finance and through the direct assumption of power, to ensure that Ulster is brought into the 20th century.
It is no use waxing eloquent as some of my hon. Friends and I myself do over Rhodesia while we have this mess to clear up in our own backyard. I remember moving an Amendment to the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill to the effect that we ought to have a Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland. I remember moving a similar Amendment on the Race Relations Bill to include a provision on religious discrimination and to extend it to Northern Ireland. My pleas at that time were unheeded, but now, unfortunately too late to have any effect, we have an Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. If we can apply the Prices and Incomes Act to Northern Ireland, surely there is nothing we cannot do from this Parliament.
A number of concessions have been made, but the Government of Northern Ireland have not so far undertaken to establish the British standards of universal adult suffrage to which I referred. They have not yet undertaken to exclude the gerrymander; and one man one vote is not one man one vote without the exclusion of the gerrymander. There is no proposal to have the equivalent of the Race Relations Act in Northern Ireland. There is no proposal so far to prevent discrimination on public boards, local authorities and large companies. There is no real undertaking with regard to a satisfactory solution of local authority housing allocations. It is true that the Government of Northern Ireland have now proposed what we have always proposed—a points system; but this will be open to modifications by the local authorities on the spot. The Unionists have still not set up an inquiry into the events in Derry in October.
I would ask the Government of Northern Ireland also to remove the Special Powers Act. We have been told a great deal about parity in legislation, but even when it comes to trade union legislation our Trade Disputes Act, 1965, which reversed Rookes v. Barnard, does not apply to Northern Ireland. Workers there


have to contract in instead of contracting out. But above all, I believe it is electoral law and electoral practice in Northern Ireland that have to be changed, the gerrymander of wards, the siting of polling booths, widespread personation and the kind of intimidation we saw even during the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. These are things that have to end. Hope has to be given to the minority that they can participate as full, first-class citizens in a part of a nation where, to its shame, they are denied their full human dignity. I can well understand the reluctance of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take over police powers in Northern Ireland and put himself, perhaps, on what might be considered the wrong side of the barricades. But as is sometimes pointed out, the Ulster police force—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rose: As The Times pointed out, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a very weak force and has to resort to rough tactics, sudden baton charges and the use of water cannon to maintain any form of control. It was said in the same article that only sheer luck so far has prevented loss of life. The problem is that its auxiliary force of B specials are entirely unacceptable as a supplementary force because of their sectarian and political background. There can be no confidence in their impartiality or, in my submission, in the impartiality of the Unionist Government. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to be decisive, to strip them of their power if necessary, while simultaneously granting the elementary demands for human rights in Northern Ireland. I ask also for a crash programme of economic development in Northern Ireland, particularly in the area west of the Bann, for a reversal of the policies which led to the resignation of Mr. Copcutt over the siting of the new town of Craigavon, and of the denial of a university to Derry which should be an area of regeneration economically to revitalise what has become a forgotten corner of the United Kingdom.
I worry when I hear of people at a Unionist conference putting down a Motion asking for "resolute action" against what it calls "a disruptive minority masquerading as champions of human rights"; and I am sad when I

hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster saying, as she did the other day, that it is too late for us to do anything now, that we should have done it long ago, and referring to "a state of civil war in Northern Ireland". I can only say it need not be so. If we act resolutely, if we have the guts to make a final ultimatum to the Northern Ireland Government, if we have the guts to tell them they must act decisively or abdicate responsibility to Westminster for a period during which the Unionist stranglehold can be broken, we can prevent the situation escalating.
I am very much in two minds about the sending of troops. I agree they are needed to defend locally key installations, but the trouble is that they can be a continuous provocation to those who, rightly or wrongly, look on this as an occupation by a foreign Power. If we are to send our lads there let us keep them in khaki guarding isolated urban installations and not post offices in Belfast or Derry, for then they may be the recipients of the anger and antagonism of the civil rights movement or the Paisleyite extremists. Defending power stations is one thing; guarding post offices in Belfast is another.

Mr. Henry Clark: The hon. Gentleman refers in a rather possessive way to "our lads in khaki". Surely he is perfectly well aware that the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom are the Armed Forces of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and are just as much our Forces as his.

Mr. Rose: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted my point that this is our country and that our country includes Northern Ireland and that therefore we have a right to talk about Northern Ireland, something that we have not done for 18 months and which we were unable to do under the Convention when hon. Gentlemen opposite persistently raised this as a point of order to prevent hon. Members like myself from giving warning four years ago of what was going on in Northern Ireland.
Finally, there are some very serious questions that we have to ask about the use of military force. Who has authority in peace time over the Armed Forces? Is it the civil power? If it is the civil power, which civil power is it? Is it


the civil power in Westminster or in Stormont? The forces cannot and must not be at the disposal of the Northern Ireland civil authorities.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is my hon. Friend aware of the evidence given to a Select Committee by Lord Haldane in 1908 on the use of the military in cases of civil disturbance, in which it was made abundantly clear that soldiers are merely used in their capacity as civilians and citizens and not as Armed Forces in such a situation?

Mr. Rose: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given me a great deal of information on this point. The concern that I feel is over whether that civil authority will be the civil authority here or the Government of Northern Ireland.
Finally, I do not believe we can abdicate our ultimate responsibility and play Pontius Pilate in this. It is a responsibility which we in this House must accept to ensure that all our citizens, of all religions and of all races on both sides of the Irish Sea, are accorded the same rights, privileges and responsibilities which we must accept in a great democracy. Let not our good name be tarnished by a Selma or a Watts in the mother of democracy. Let us meet this challenge and show that like the civil rights movement across the barriers of religion and community, as one people we can, we must and we shall overcome.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I should be the last to wish to raise the temperature of a debate conducted in an atmosphere as grave as this. However, I shall perhaps be forgiven, and will cause no offence, if I reiterate what I have always believed; namely, that the Englishman has not yet been born who understands Ireland, North or South. For that reason, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) showed what seemed to me genuine astonishment when he was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who asked whether the hon. Gentleman was pouring petrol on the flames. The hon. Gentleman may well find that some of the things which he said, when they are read at home, cause more trouble than he intended.
I must answer one point which the hon. Gentleman made. He referred to the Bogside. I had some experience of this last weekend. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was impossible for the police to go in there because of the welcome they would receive. The police regularly patrol that area, and the occurrences to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been very rare indeed—almost unprecedented. The hon. Gentleman somewhat overpainted the picture of hostility between the two communities. I know that there have been grievances and strong feeling between groups of people, but for the most part the two communities have lived amicably together for years.
I propose to ignore what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said yesterday. I do not believe that this is the kind of issue which we wish to discuss if we can avoid it. The right hon. Gentleman was acting as the rogue elephant of his party.
Yesterday in the House I sought to make a distinction between the activities of the hard core of the Irish Republican Army or its splinter groups and those of the so-called civil rights movement. I believe that I was right to do so. I did it deliberately because it is important that the House should recall what happened in Northern Ireland from 1956 to 1962. At that time the I.R.A. was very active. Six policemen were killed and a number of others were wounded. A Constable was shot from behind a church wall on a Sunday. Others were wounded. Millions of £s worth of damage was done.
During the night before last a number of post offices in Belfast were attacked. Some were gutted and others were badly damaged. All the attacks are believed to have occurred within about ten minutes, which hardly suggests the casual work of a disgruntled civil rights worker returning from a peaceful sit-down at the front of the city hall. It is worth remembering that an attack on a post office constitutes an attack on one of the services specifically reserved to Her Majesty's Government. On the same night a bomb explosion wrecked the main water supply pipe for the Silent Valley reservoir, as a result of which a great many people in Belfast and in the surrounding districts were without water. I think that they are still without water.


Some of my hon. Friends were affected, and no doubt they can confirm what I say. I understand from people who have seen it that this was not the work of an amateur. Indeed, it undoubtedly suggests the work of the I.R.A. possibly its splinter group, or a reasonably well-organised body of that kind.
The I.R.A. has not been dormant over the last few years. I need mention only the incidents in 1967–68 for which the I.R.A. claimed responsibility, which it does not by any means always do. There was the tarring and feathering of a gentleman named T. G. McGuinness for being an informer. There was a raid on the Newtownbreda bank to increase party funds. Two Territorial Army centres were destroyed and another centre was attacked. There have been incidents this year, too, and I do not think that the I.R.A. would deny them. Time is likely to show that what happened two nights ago in the incidents to which I have referred was almost certainly the I.R.A.'s work or the work of a dangerous splinter group which regards the acts of its larger brother organisation as being far too tame.
In those years, British troops were used not just for guarding key installations but for bomb disposal and helicopter and spotter plane work. They were used for anti-I.R.A. patrols on the Border and in the Border areas. That is not what the Home Secretary is asking of them today. They are merely being asked to do static guard duty at key points essential to the life of the community.
I am satisfied—no doubt this will be challenged—that the I.R.A. has resumed its activities. It will not admit the activities of the last two nights. It wants them to be regarded as part of a spontaneous uprising against alleged oppression. It has chosen, from its point of view, an optimum moment, when the police forces of Northern Ireland are stretched to their utmost. Whether these activities are being carried out by I.R.A. flying squads operating over the Border or internally, I cannot tell. But there is undoubtedly knowledge—we have known this over the years—that bodies of men belonging to this organisation have drilled in the country across the Border. The Republican Government in the South would be well advised to keep very close surveillance to see whether

this is going on now. Perhaps the Home Secretary will draw this to the attention of the Minister who is responsible for these matters.
The Home Secretary is merely allowing the use of troops to guard key installations. This might happen in any part of the United Kingdom. I only hope that the same situation will not have to be faced in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I turn to the events of last weekend in Londonderry. I was an eyewitness to a good many of them. On Saturday, a march from a place which will be only too familiar to some—a place of tragedy, I agree, called Burntollet—was banned on the order of the Minister for Home Affairs. Reports of subsequent events are still somewhat confused. But, as is reported, it is clear that one of the leaders of the so-called civil rights movement—a Mr. Ivan Cooper, now Member of Parliament for Mid-Derry at Stormont—stated categorically that he believed that the ban on the march was justified.
Despite the ban, small groups of people assembled. Certain rival factions were present, but not very much happened. Later in the afternoon groups of demonstrators sat down in some of the streets of Londonderry below the centre of the town. Above them, in the area known as the Diamond, there were a number of youths waving Union Jacks. At some point there was stone-throwing between the two factions. The police intervened, and for a long time they were subjected to a barrage of stones, pieces of iron, bottles and bulbs from Belisha beacons, and running battles followed. The youths with the Union Jacks melted away and were not seen much for the rest of the night. The early evening and much of the night was undoubtedly extremely ugly. Quite a lot of it has been seen by hon. Members on television. On other occasions—and this matter has been treated with scorn by some hon. Members; I hope that they will be patient with me if I say it again, because it is true—I.R.A. leaders and agitators of a different kind have been seen taking part in these so-called civil rights demonstrations.

Mr. William Molloy: If the Government of Northern Ireland had long ago conceded decent and dignified human rights to the minority,


the I.R.A., if the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, would not have been able to cash in on the disturbances which have taken place recently.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is a point of view. I shall come to that as I go along. On this occasion the evidence of the television was slightly different as I saw it with my own eyes. It seemed to me that those who could be seen throwing pieces of paving stones, waving their clubs, and pushing in windows of police barracks were rather different. It seemed to me that with few exceptions they were gangs of youths of 16 or 17 who were goading each other on and very much enjoying the sound of breaking glass. It struck me that on the evenings when they are not indulging in these practices they are not the types of people who necessarily spend a long evening in the intellectual contemplation of the evils of the local government franchise in Northern Ireland or in deep contemplation of other aspects of other people's civil rights. Be that as it may, there was an outbreak that night and the police were attacked with petrol bombs on more than one occasion.
Much has been made of the fact that shots were fired by the police. I happen to know how this occurred, and I saw afterwards the van or water hose carrier, whatever it may be called, which was attacked. In this case it was, I gather, tilted on to one side and a petrol bomb was thrown inside. Those inside, rather than face being incinerated, jumped out. They were surrounded by a hostile crowd. To disperse the crowd, one of them fired a number of shots over the heads of the crowd. I see nothing much wrong with that.
I was in Londonderry on the following day—all day. I visited the Bogside area. So did certain other people who are in the House today. I visited not only that area but the Unionist areas as well. I do not know whether others in the House visited that area as well. However, I felt it right to have as clear a perspective as possible and to see as much as possible of the riot-affected areas.
I hope never again to see not just so much broken glass but so much stark human misery unnecessarily caused as I saw on that day. It was misery which was

shared on all sides. There was anxiety everywhere. People were clearly very frightened indeed. Much of this was caused by that Saturday night riot.
I am bound to record, however, that not all of it was caused by that. In view of the kind of story which is put out by Mary Holland, I think it right that something should be said on the other side, too. I found people, in this case in Unionist parts of the city—no doubt we shall hear other stories from the other side—who were living alone. There were elderly women who had been awakened at night by the singing of various civil rights songs outside. Then came the ring of the doorbell. Then pieces of burning paper were pushed through their letterboxes. [Interruption.] We shall hear the other side of the story. I know that this kind of thing goes on. It must be recorded that it is not just on one side. I found one street where there are elderly people—most of them women living alone—who were really very upset by the situation.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is accusing youth of this sort of behaviour in Londonderry, but is it not true that any Member would put youth in an entirely different category from the Londonderry police, who have been responsible for exactly the same sort of behaviour?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: This is the kind of allegation which is not usually made by the hon. Gentleman, whose views I normally listen to with great respect. However, he has not been there; he knows nothing about it. I shall come to the question of the police in a few moments. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a most irresponsible remark.
These people were awakened on several nights by people outside singing civil rights songs and shouting, "Break all the bloody glass". This is the sort of thing which I fear is done in the name of civil rights. This is an area in which the people have shown nothing but a desire to live in peace. They have taken no part in any of these activities. My sympathy goes out to the ordinary people of Londonderry who have not taken part in these things—to the shopkeepers and businessmen whose Saturday trade has been ruined. Some of them are even thinking of leaving the city. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has listened to one side quietly. We must hear the other side.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think, too, as the hon. Member for Blackley does—I accept his sincerity—of those who are wondering where work is coming from. What will they think about these things? They are now wondering which industrialists will be deterred from coming to Londonderry.

Mr. John Lee: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) is not giving way. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) must resume his seat.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: This is the tragedy. Londonderry was literally on the verge—perhaps it had even crossed the verge—of an industrial breakthrough. The hon. Member for Blackley is an assiduous reader of the papers from across the way. I need not recite all the facts and figures. He knows how many jobs have been provided there over the last two years. He knows how many have been provided over the last year. He knows how many more there are in the pipeline. I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. I know that he is as anxious as I am to bring work to that city; I am perfectly certain of that.

An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman is?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have fought very hard for jobs for Londonderry. That should be within the recollection of even the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly within the recollection of the Secretary of State.
I want to say a few words now about the police. They have been greatly maligned. If anyone wants to create real trouble in any country, if it is desired to create anarchy, if it is desired to have a mini-revolution, the textbook way is, "Discredit the police". Hon. Gentlemen must in fairness accept that there is an element of this going on—a deliberate attempt to discredit the police.
I can only say that what I saw on Sunday convinces me that the conduct of the police deserved the very highest praise. There was the occasional exception. One was shown on television where

a policeman who had been pelted among his colleagues for many minutes with stones and other missiles picked up a stone and lobbed it rather gently back. [Laughter.] Yes, I have the evidence of my own eyes. The missile fell far short. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen think that the figures showing 216 policemen injured—one in danger of losing his sight, two with fractured jaws, others with serious abdominal injury and head wounds, most of those still in hospital—against about 80 civilians treated for injuries present a picture of police brutality? Does it? From what I saw of some of the brutality used against the police—perhaps "brutality" is too strong a word to describe what I saw, though I saw some of this—I am surprised that more policemen did not lose control of themselves.
I come down strongly in praise of the work of the police as I saw them. I only hope that those who recklessly pit themselves against the forces of law and order will pause to remember that if they get hurt the policemen are human beings, too. There has been some danger in the last few days of forgetting that.
I want to say a few words, too, about the civil rights movement itself, so-called. [HON. MEMBERS: "And civil rights."] I have said plenty about civil rights in the past. I use the phrase "so-called" advisedly because I believe that the time has come for the Press and other media to consider whether it is wise, just or fair any longer to use the description "civil rights" at all.
I accept that at the beginning there were people who sincerely believed that they were joining a movement which would do something for its country, but there have been a great many resignations from the civil rights movement over the last few weeks and months. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Unionist Party?] There was a General Election there recently on the basis of one man one vote, and more Unionist Members were returned to Parliament than ever before. I do not wish to pursue this. I accept that that is a partisan point.
I believe—and I ask the House to treat this seriously—that hon. Gentlemen opposite should withhold their jeers, because it is my view that months ago infiltration into the civil rights body began from the I.R.A., from Communist


elements, and latterly from the student element, of a kind to which many countries all over Europe have become accustomed during the last few months.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Were I to give way I should certainly choose an hon. Gentleman opposite to give way to. I am sure that he would know more about this subject than does the hon. Member for Orpington.
Any area where old antagonisms can be stirred and exploited is an inviting target for the activities of such a body, and where the divisions are of a religious nature, how much easier is it to exploit the situation, and how much more tragic that it should be so exploited. I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the Northern Ireland Government are an oppressive régime. They believe, further, that an oppressive régime and its supporters will always spin stories about Communist infiltration. That being so, I suggest to the Home Secretary that if what I have said is disbelieved by hon. Gentlemen opposite he should send five or six of his best C.I.D. men to Ulster, at the invitation of the Northern Ireland Government, and let them have every facility to look into what is going on there.

Mr. Lubbock: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Londonderry is obviously not giving way. Interruptions prolong speeches, and many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have already given way, and I must get on with my speech.
The truth of the matter is that the creators of the civil rights movement, sincere as many of them were, have inadvertently created a monster over which they now have no control. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should ask Mr. John Hume. I no longer believe that this body calling itself the C.R.A. has more than an incidental interest in civil rights.

Hon. Members: What about civil rights?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I hope that I may be wrong, but it may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite will exert pressure for the removal of some grievance, or alleged grievance, of one specific nature—[Interruption.] I shall make my speech and leave hon. Gentlemen opposite to make theirs.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that it may be that there is no alleged grievance of a specific nature the settling of which will bring the agitation which is currently present to an end. I believe that things have got beyond that. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to think, and to think again, before they show any further encouragement to marches, protests and countermarches in Northern Ireland.
The phrase "civil rights" is a very evocative one, and it brings to mind Martin Luther King. One remembers the words that he used about his supporters. He said that they meant to join society, not to overthrow it. Perhaps more hon. hon. Gentlemen opposite should go to Northern Ireland—it is not so expensive to get there—to obtain the necessary knowledge and satisfy themselves that some of these people really mean to join society and not to overthrow it.
I am not at the moment hopeful of a great détente between the communities there in the present atmosphere. I support the Home Secretary in the action that he has taken to restore law and order in those places where it has broken down. I support the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to return things to normal, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to support the Home Secretary with their voices, too.
I have said many times in this House—and I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite realise this—that the scars which exist in Ulster are historical scars. They go back for many years. Things cannot be changed overnight. If the last General Election in Northern Ireland showed anything, it must have shown hon. Gentlemen opposite two things. First, it showed that while there have been some changes, while there has been some alteration in the process of sectarianism in voting habits, it was no flood, and that is an understatement. Perhaps it showed something else, too. It showed


that interference or attempted interference from here, however well intentioned, more often than not has the wrong effect.

4.37 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: I understand that in making my maiden speech on the day of my arrival in Parliament and in making it on a controversial issue I flaunt the unwritten traditions of the House, but I think that the situation of my people merits the flaunting of such traditions.
I remind the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) that I, too, was in the Bogside area on the night that he was there. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there never was born an Englishman who understands the Irish people. Thus a man who is alien to the ordinary working Irish people cannot understand them, and I therefore respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman has no understanding of my people, because Catholics and Protestants are the ordinary people, the oppressed people from whom I come and whom I represent. I stand here as the youngest woman in Parliament, in the same tradition as the first woman ever to be elected to this Parliament, Constance Markievicz, who was elected on behalf of the Irish people.
This debate comes much too late for the people of Ireland, since it concerns itself particularly with the action in Derry last weekend. I will do my best to dwell on the action in Derry last weekend. However, it is impossible to consider the activity of one weekend in a city such as Derry without considering the reasons why these things happen.
The hon. Member for Londonderry said that he stood in Bogside. I wonder whether he could name the streets through which he walked in the Bogside so that we might establish just how well acquainted he became with the area. I had never hoped to see the day when I might agree with someone who represents the bigoted and sectarian Unionist Party, which uses a deliberate policy of dividing the people in order to keep the ruling minority in power and to keep the oppressed people of Ulster oppressed. I never thought that I should see the day when I should agree with any phrase uttered by the representative of such a party, but the hon. Gentleman summed

up the situation "to a t". He referred to stark, human misery. That is what I saw in Bogside. It has not been there just for one night. It has been there for 50 years—and that same stark human misery is to be found in the Protestant Fountain area, which the hon. Gentleman would claim to represent.
These are the people the hon. Gentleman would claim do want to join society. Because they are equally poverty-stricken they are equally excluded from the society which the Unionist Party represents—the society of landlords who, by ancient charter of Charles II, still hold the rights of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland over such things as fishing and as paying the most ridiculous and exorbitant rents, although families have lived for generations on their land. But this is the ruling minority of landlords who, for generations, have claimed to represent one section of the people and, in order to maintain their claim, divide the people into two sections and stand up in this House and say that there are those who do not wish to join the society.
The people in my country who do not wish to join the society which is represented by the hon. Member for Londonderry are by far the majority. There is no place in society for us, the ordinary "peasants" of Northern Ireland. There is no place for us in the society of landlords because we are the "have-nots" and they are the "haves".
We came to the situation in Derry when the people had had enough. Since 5th October, it has been the unashamed and deliberate policy of the Unionist Government to try to force an image on the civil rights movement that it was nothing more than a Catholic uprising. The people in the movement have struggled desperately to overcome that image, but it is impossible when the ruling minority are the Government and control not only political matters but the so-called impartial forces of law and order. It is impossible then for us to state quite fairly where we stand.
How can we say that we are a nonsectarian movement and are for the rights of both Catholics and Protestants when, clearly, we are beaten into the Catholic areas? Never have we been beaten into the Protestant areas. When the students marched from Belfast to Derry, there was a predominant number


of Protestants. The number of non-Catholics was greater than the number of Catholics. Nevertheless, we were still beaten into the Catholic area because it was in the interests of the minority and the Unionist Party to establish that we were nothing more than a Catholic uprising—just as it is in the interest of the hon. Member for Londonderry to come up with all this tripe about the I.R.A.
I assure the hon. Member that his was quite an interesting interpretation of the facts, but I should like to put an equally interesting interpretation. There is a fine gentleman known among ordinary Irish people as the Squire of Ahoghill. He happens to be the Prime Minister, Captain Terence O'Neill. He is the "white liberal" of Northern Ireland. He is the man who went on television and said to his people, "There are a lot of nasty people going around and if you are not careful you will all end up in the I.R.A. What kind of Ulster do you want? Come with me and I will give you an Ulster you can be proud to live in".
Captain O'Neill listed a number of reforms which came nowhere near satisfying the needs of the people. Had he even had the courage of his convictions—had he even convictions—to carry out the so-called reforms he promised, we might have got somewhere. But none of his so-called reforms was carried out. He suggested a points system for the allocation of houses until such time that the Tory Party could see its way to introducing a crash housing programme. He suggested that a points system should be introduced, but he did nothing to force the majority of Unionist-controlled councils to introduce it. He thought that his suggestion would be quite sufficient to make everyone doff their caps, touch their forelocks and say, "Yes, Captain O'Neill. We will introduce it." But the local councils of Northern Ireland do not work like that.
We come to the question of what can be done about incidents like that in Derry at the weekend. Captain O'Neill has thought of a bright idea—that tomorrow we shall be given one man, one vote. Does he think that, from 5th October until today, events have not driven it into the minds of the people that there are two ideals which are

incompatible—the ideal of social justice and the ideal and existence of the Unionist Party? Both cannot exist in the same society. This has been proved time and again throughout Northern Ireland by the actions of the Unionist Party.
In the General Election, Captain O'Neill had the big idea of dividing and conquering. Captain O'Neill, the "liberal" Unionist, said, "Do not vote for Protestant Unionists because they are nasty Fascist people". When the election was over, he had no qualms about taking the number of so-called "Fascist" Unionist votes and the "liberal" Unionist votes together, adding them up and saying, "Look how many people voted Unionist".
We, the people of Ulster, are no longer to be fooled, because there are always those of us who can see no difference between the Paisleyite faction and the O'Neill faction, except that the unfortunate Paisleyite faction do not have hyphenated surnames. So we are faced with the situation that Captain O'Neill may, in the morning, say, "You now have one man, one vote". What will it mean to the people? Why do the people ask for one man, one vote, with each vote of equal value to the next?
The Unionist policy has always been to divide the people who are dependent upon them. The question of voting is tied up mainly with the question of housing, and this is something which the House has failed to understand. The people of Northern Ireland want votes not for the sake of voting but for the sake of being able to exercise democratic rights over the controlling powers of their own areas. The present system operates in such a way that Unionist-controlled councils and even Nationalist-controlled councils discriminate against those in their areas who are in the minority. The policy of segregated housing is to be clearly seen in the smallest villages of Ulster. The people of Ulster want the right to vote and for each vote to be of equal value so that, when it comes to the question of building more houses, we do not have the situation which we already have in Derry and in Dungannon.
In Dungannon, the Catholic ward already has too many houses in it. There is no room to build any more in that


ward. It would appear logical that houses should be built, therefore, in what is traditionally known as the Protestant ward or, euphemistically, the "Nationalist" or "Unionist" ward, where there is space. But this would give rise to the nasty situation of building new houses in the Unionist or Protestant ward and thus letting in a lot of Fenians who might outvote the others.
I wish to make it clear that in an area such as Omagh the same corruption is carried on because Protestants need houses and the only place for them is in a Catholic area. The one point that these two forms of activity have in common is that whether they are green or orange, both are Tory. The people of Northern Ireland have been forced into this situation.
I was in the Bogside on the same evening as the hon. Member for Londonderry. I assure you, Mr. Speaker—and I make no apology for the fact—that I was not strutting around with my hands behind my back examining the area and saying "tut-tut" every time a policeman had his head scratched. I was going around building barricades because I knew that it was not safe for the police to come in.
I saw with my own eyes 1,000 policemen come in military formation into an oppressed, and socially and economically depressed area—in formation of six abreast, joining up to form 12 abreast like wild Indians, screaming their heads off to terrorise the inhabitants of that area so that they could beat them off the streets and into their houses.
I also accept that policemen are human and that if someone throws a stone at a man and injures him, whether he be in uniform or out of uniform, if he is human he is likely to lift another stone and, either in self-defence or in sheer anger, to hurl it back. Therefore when people on either side lose control, this kind of fighting breaks out.
An unfortunate policeman with whom I came into contact did not know who was in charge in a particular area. I wanted to get children out of the area and I asked the policeman who was in charge. He said, "I don't know who is running this lot." I well understand this kind of situation at individual level, but when a police force are acting under orders—presumably from the top, and

the top invariably is the Unionist Party—and form themselves into military formation with the deliberate intention of terrorising the inhabitants of an area, I can have no sympathy for them as a body. So I organised the civilians in that area to make sure that they wasted not one solitary stone in anger. [Laughter.]
Hon. Members may find this amusing and in the comfortable surroundings of this honourable House it may seem amusing, but at two o'clock in the morning on the Bogside there was something horrifying about the fact that someone such as I, who believes in non-violence, had to settle for the least violent method, which was to build barricades and to say to the police, "We can threaten you."
The hon. Member for Londonderry said that the situation has got out of hand under the "so-called civil rights people". The one thing which saved Derry from possibly going up in flames was the fact that they had John Hume, Member of Parliament for Foyle, Eamonn McCann, and Ivan Cooper, Member of Parliament for Mid-Derry, there. They went to the Bogside and said, "Fair enough; the police have occupied your area, not in the interests of law and order but for revenge, not by the police themselves but because the Unionist Party have lost a few square yards of Derry and people have put up a sign on the wall saying 'Free Derry'". The Unionist Party was wounded because nothing can be morally or spiritually free under a Unionist Government. They were determined that there should be no second Free Derry. That is why the police invaded that area. The people had the confidence of those living in that area to cause a mass evacuation and to leave it to the police alone, and then to say, "We are marching back in and you have two hours to get out". The police got out.
The situation with which we are faced in Northern Ireland is one in which I feel I can no longer say to the people "Don't worry about it. Westminster is looking after you". Westminster cannot condone the existence of this situation. It has on its benches Members of that party who by deliberate policy keep down the ordinary people. The fact that I sit on the Labour benches and am likely to make myself unpopular with everyone


on these benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Any Socialist Government worth its guts would have got rid of them long ago.
There is no denying that the problem and the reason for this situation in Northern Ireland is social and economic, because the people of Northern Ireland are being oppressed not only by a Tory Government, a misruling Tory Government and an absolutely corrupt, bigoted and self-interested Tory Government, but by a Tory Government of whom even the Tories in this House ought to be ashamed and from which they should dissociate themselves.
Therefore I ask that in the interests of the ordinary people there should be no tinkering with the kind of capitalist methods used by both the Northern Ireland Unionist Party and Mr. Jack Lynch's Fianna Fail Party. It was with no amusement but with a great deal of horror that I heard the somewhat peculiar statement by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) about an O'Neill-Lynch United Party. This brings home to me that hon. Members of this House do not understand what is going on. Of all the possible solutions of our problem the least popular would be an agreement between the two arch-Tories of Ireland.
I should like in conclusion to take a brief look at the future. This is where the question of British troops arises. The question before this House, in view of the apathy, neglect and lack of understanding which this House has shown to these people in Ulster which it claims to represent, is how in the shortest space it can make up for 50 years of neglect, apathy and lack of understanding. Short of producing miracles such as factories overnight in Derry and homes overnight in practically every area in the North of Ireland, what can we do? If British troops are sent in I should not like to be either the mother or sister of an unfortunate soldier stationed there. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) may talk till Domesday about "Our boys in khaki", but it has to be recognised that the one point in common among Ulstermen is that they are not very fond of Englishmen who tell them what to do.
Possibly the most extreme solution, since there can be no justice while there

is a Unionist Party, because while there is a Unionist Party they will by their gerrymandering control Northern Ireland and be the Government of Northern Ireland, is to consider the possibility of abolishing Stormont and ruling from Westminster. Then we should have the ironical situation in which the people who once shouted "Home rule is Rome rule" were screaming their heads off for home rule, so dare anyone take Stormont away? They would have to ship every Government Member out of the country for his own safety—because only the "rank" defends, such as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture.
Another solution which the Government may decide to adopt is to do nothing but serve notice on the Unionist Government that they will impose economic sanctions on them if true reforms are not carried out. The interesting point is that the Unionist Government cannot carry out reforms. If they introduce the human rights Bill and outlaw sectarianism and discrimination, what will the party which is based on, and survives on, discrimination do? By introducing the human rights Bill, it signs its own death warrant. Therefore, the Government can impose economic sanctions but the Unionist Party will not yield. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot impose economic sanctions on the dead.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: It is a privilege for me to follow the hon. lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I should like first to welcome her to this House and congratulate her on the speech she has just made.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Thorpe: There is one quality—and there are many others—which she showed during her by-election campaign and in the course of her speech. That is the quality of courage, a quality which we in this House, wherever we may sit, respect.
This House has heard in the past impassioned speeches from hon. Members who come from Ireland. The names of Parnell, Tim Healey, Redmond and many others spring to mind. Therefore, the hon. Lady has a great tradition to follow. Those Irish Members were at some times of great assistance to the Government of the day, and sometimes they were the


reverse. I hope that she will be successful in either of those two objectives as regards Her Majesty's present Government—that she will give the former when it will be the suitable treatment but that she will give the latter when it is necessary.
I am delighted that my colleague, Sheila Murnaghan, formerly Liberal Member in Stormont, should have had the privilege of supporting the hon. Lady at her eve-of poll meeting during the campaign. I hope that we shall hear much more from the hon. Lady in the future.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that no Englishman understands Ireland. That may well be true, and it may well be that I shall fall into that fault. But I can at least claim that I have more Irish blood coursing in my veins than anything else. [Laughter.] I also have a little Welsh. [Interruption.] I have no doubt about my paternity, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not, either.

An Hon. Member: And a little whisky?

Mr. Thorpe: I would hope so, and a very little English to make up the bulk. It is therefore with some feeling of pride that I speak about Ireland.
It is significant that on the day when the hon. Lady takes her seat we should be discussing Northern Ireland, because for far too long the problems and grievances of this unhappy part of the United Kingdom have been neglected by the House. When we remember that Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act makes it quite plain that we are the sovereign body but that we are also expected to vote large sums of money every year to subsidise the Government of Northern Ireland, it is a disgrace that we have not had further discussion and debate about what has been happening.
No doubt amongst a large number of hon. Members, particularly on the Ulster Unionist bench, there may be great indignation at the proposal of the Government in Dublin to approach the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the situation in Northern Ireland. But if the United Kingdom is to continue to claim convincingly that what happens in Northern Ireland is our concern and not that of the United Nations, the United

Kingdom Parliament, and particularly the United Kingdom Government here, must live up to its responsibilities, both legal and moral.
We as a party are firm believers in the desirability of decentralisation for the people of all parts of the United Kingdom. But it must be on the basis of equal rights of citizenship, which it is notorious do not exist in Northern Ireland today.
I think that all hon. Members will agree in deploring the violence to people and the destruction of property which have disfigured the past few days, especially in Belfast and Londonderry. But it would he both complacent and foolish to see these disorders in isolation and treat them merely as hooliganism to be suppressed. Nor do I think that the hon. Member for Londonderry was on very firm ground when he talked about infiltration. Who has infiltrated the Unionist Party in the past few months? They have certainly not been progressive liberals; they have been Paisleyites with a large and small "p".
It is obvious that extremists will exploit the situation to their own advantage, and that the hon. Lady had a fair balance between her condemnation of extremists on either side. To me, Paisleyism and the I.R.A. have far more in common with each other than either of them has with decent and moderate opinion, but the trouble is that the political conduct of the ruling party in Northern Ireland and the economic and social conditions which exist combine to appease one form of extremism and provoke the other.
Whatever the views of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), I recognise the right of the majority of people of Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom for as long as they desire. But we regard the refusal of the Ulster Unionist Party to afford the full rights of citizenship to the Catholic minority in the province as not only offensive and wrong but crass folly. It is notorious that the delay in according full democratic rights to all citizens is the result of Paisleyite and other bigoted pressures which have been brought to bear on the Government there. This has given us evidence that the extremist tail wags the Unionist dog, and, as it does so, widens the gap between the Stormont Government and the Catholic minority.
Every day that the pressure of Paisleyites—whether the rough-hewn kind or the more polished but no less noxious Brookeborough variety, which is so strong in the Orange Lodges and, therefore, in the councils of the Unionist Party—delays reform makes the maintenance of law and order more difficult. Procrastination by the Stormont Government provides the best propaganda for the I.R.A. The preservation of law and peace depends on recognition of the claims of justice. Surely after such an appalling history in Ireland this should be obvious to everybody in the House.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Including the Liberal Party.

Mr. Thorpe: Including the Liberal Party. But perhaps I would except the hon. and learned Gentleman from the ambit of that general conclusion.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I should be grateful—

Mr. Thorpe: I ask not for the hon. and learned Gentleman's gratitude. We remember the part he played in opposing Captain Terence O'Neill in the last election.
The complete solution of the problem is unlikely to be achieved in the present Parliament. As the Orangemen never tire of reminding us, the problems have existed since the 17th century.
A great amelioration in the conditions in Northern Ireland is possible. So, unhappily, is a great deterioration. A great deal depends on this House and on the Government of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I would like to make certain requests. First the Government should make it plain to the authorities, subordinate authorities let us remember, that the subsidies for Northern Ireland and the provision of British Servicemen to carry out guard duties which normally fall to the police cannot continue indefinitely without reform.
I hope that we shall hear a little more about the very difficult situation in which our Servicemen are being placed. The Northern Ireland Government must produce a timetable for carrying out the reforms which Captain O'Neill has promised, and which, unhappily, a large minority of Unionists have succeeded in

delaying. The timetable must be publicly announced and it must be brief. It would be utterly inadequate, in the present circumstances, to delay until the Cameron Commission, inquiring into the causes of unrest in Northern Ireland, has reported. The appointment of the Commission was a wise step, but its value would be undermined if its existence were made the excuse for delaying measures which all reasonable opinion recognises to be necessary.
Second, I appeal to the Ulster Unionist Members in this House to set an example of civic courage and strike a blow against sectarianism, which Captain O'Neill has so often deplored, by severing their connection with the Orange Order. Whatever may be said for the theoretical principles of this allegedly religious organisation, everyone knows that it is an instrument for preserving political power in the hands of one part of the community. Why otherwise would a man like Phelim O'Neill have been thrown out of the Orange Lodge for no other reason than that he had the temerity to attend a Roman Catholic service in his own constituency?

Mr. Lubbock: Answer that one.

Mr. Thorpe: The value of that symbolic move would be of enormous significance. One of the few encouraging developments in Northern Ireland has been the fact that a few of the more enlightened Unionists in Stormont have taken this step. There is therefore something they could do as a practical measure.
Third, I would renew the suggestion I made yesterday that a conference of all parties in Northern Ireland might be called to consider the problems of the province. It is of the utmost importance to demonstrate that reasonable suggestions from the Opposition will be met with a reasonable response by the Government in Stormont. Reason can sometimes flourish better in the calm of a round-table conference than on the floor of a legislature.
Fourth, I would appeal to the Irish politicians in the Republic to treat the present crisis with restraint. One cannot ask them to give up their principle of a united Ireland, in which they sincerely believe. But they can, by their speeches, either inflame or soothe the wounds of


Ireland. I believe that the unity of Ireland can never be achieved except on the basis of free consent by the majority of the people in the six counties as well as on the basis of the wishes of the 26. I appeal to all hon. Members and to the British electorate as a whole to recognise their responsibilities for, in the words of the Act which established Stormont,
… the better government of the province.
If, today, we are faced with talk about the possibility of civil war in part of the United Kingdom, if British soldiers in part of the United Kingdom are in greater danger than their comrades in, say, Cyprus or Anguilla, to name two other troubled islands, it is partly because this House has too long and too often ignored the situation of chronic grievance and profound distress. The Unionists may boast of the benefits of the British connection—but in Derry, where unemployment ever since the war has never fallen below four times the present British average, people may be forgiven for doubting it.
The Unionists may boast of British standards. We should all like to see British standards. We want to see at least as good a standard in Ulster as in any part of the United Kingdom. We want to be equally certain that there is no gerrymandering of boundaries, that there is no plural vote in local elections, that the Race Relations Act is applied equally to Ulster as it is to Britain, that the housing problem is as fairly tackled, and houses allocated as in the rest of the United Kingdom. These are not tremendous demands to make, but it is an extraordinary thing that to this day we have to make them.
Anyone who has been to Londonderry and visited the major factory, with the highest turnover of human beings in Londonderry—namely, that large, bleak labour exchange, where there is a never-ending queue of men wanting jobs—cannot but feel passionately that we have to try not only to rescue the economy of Ulster but to give the people the same civic rights as in other parts of the United Kingdom. In a province which has been dominated by a single party for nearly half a century those standards are today in disrepair. I believe that we owe it to Northern Ireland and to ourselves to see that this neglect is ended.
I believe that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday and the debate which we are holding today represent a watershed in the future politics of Northern Ireland, because it means that at long last this House has realised its responsibilities and is prepared to grapple with them. We must try to help heal these wounds and end the neglect. Unless we do this, the violence of the last few days will increase and spread, and I pray God that it will not be so.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. John Ryan: I am sensitive to the fact that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, so I will make a very brief speech. I am extremely glad to be the first Member of the Government side of the House to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) on a quite outstanding maiden speech. Those Members whose memories go back much further than mine must have found it very hard to think of one of equal passion and concern for the people the hon. Member represents, and on whose behalf she will have a quite brilliant contribution to make to our debates.
I am glad that the Home Secretary is on the Government Front Bench, because I want to begin by considering the statement he made yesterday. I do not quarrel with anything that he said, my quarrel is with what he did not say. I hope that when we have a Government contribution today it will take the scene a bit further than where it was left yesterday. The unfortunate impression was given yesterday that as long as gas, electricity and water were flowing, as long as public investment and public utilities were being defended, the area of responsibility of the British Government or this party stopped there.
That is certainly not my position, nor I believe is it the position of many on the Government side. Much as we agree with the albeit negative action into which the Government were forced through making British troops available to defend these utilities against violence which I deplore, and which was a negative intrusion, we want to see a clear statement about what positive steps the Government intend to take to deal with some of the problems which contribute to the real


malaise of the situation in Northern Ireland, not merely the symptoms of that malaise.
There are three points I want to raise and the first, which troubles me enormously, is this. It is the test of the civilised nature of any society that ordinary citizens can turn to the police for aid and assistance without any doubt that their claim for assistance will be met fairly. I do not believe that this is the position in Northern Ireland. When there is a lack of confidence by the minority population in the police then one of the most elemental parts in the fabric of that society is worthless.
In the present disturbances in Northern Ireland there is a danger that the Northern Ireland Government will summon the B Specials into the area of operation, to try to assist the regular police in their difficult task of maintaining law and order. The B Specials have been described as Paisleyites in uniform; they have been described as extremists who are a sectarian organisation, politically motivated and politically selected. It would be interesting if the Home Secretary would give a breakdown of the recruitment of the B Specials, the different parts of the Six Counties whence they come, their loyalties and their political affiliations. It is the belief among the masses of people in Northern Ireland that the B Specials comprise a sectarian organisation and that their use in a situation of civil distress is like using petrol to put out a fire. This is an extremely serious matter and something on which the Home Secretary must comment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) spoke about his dream of one Ireland. I disagree with him to the extent that I believe that the basic cause of the civil unrest in Northern Ireland is discrimination in jobs and in housing and the basic cause of that discrimination is the existence of the Border. The repressive legislation which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) described exists to prevent Irishmen from being Irishmen. That was why the Border was created. Forty years have passed and, whereas the Border is possibly the root cause of the present problem, the mere abolition of the Border is not the solution of that problem.
I am encouraged that the problem is being recognised increasingly as a problem of civil rights and not of reunification of the country. I can see no difference between the civil rights of a Catholic in Derry and the civil rights of a Communist in Dublin or a Protestant in Malta or Madrid. Such things are indivisible and one should not talk in Republican terms of such matters.

Mr. George Brown: Will my hon. Friend examine this proposition? The root cause, he recognises, as we all must, is the artificial division of Ireland imposed upon it from outside. Mixing my similes as an Irishman is entitled to do, under that umbrella other evils have arisen, such as the denial of civil rights. Does not my hon Friend agree with me, therefore, that no matter what is done about the temporary problems of civil rights, important as they are, until the root cause of the problem is removed—the reason why Roman Catholics fear Protestants and Protestants fear Roman Catholics—the troubles of Ireland, whether in the North or the South, will not be put right?

Mr. Ryan: I disagree with my right hon. Friend. Much as I value his opinions on many subjects, I fear that his contacts with the situation in Northern Ireland may be rather out-dated, and it would be of benefit to him if he went there and talked to civil rights leaders such as Ivan Cooper and John Hume, who would in no situation argue the Republican position. I have heard this argument put forward at Stormont by Mr. Austin Currie. The civil rights movement is not geared to pulling down the Union Jack in Northern Ireland. It is geared to giving the same tolerant constitutional relationship under the Union Jack in Northern Ireland as is enjoyed in the rest of Britain under that flag. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an artificial division. But this is a matter for the Irish to decide, and I hope that the Home Secretary will underline the constitutional position which he has stated before and which is accepted by the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland.
This Government have a particular responsibility in this matter. One difficulty is that the civil rights leaders claimed that Captain O'Neill was stalling for time


and that he was undertaking his delaying reforms so as to give time for a change of Government here in the belief that a Conservative Government would be elected and reforms would no longer be necessary. This was a fundamental impediment to the trust in Captain O'Neill by the minority of the population and a great deal of responsibility for this rests with the Leader of the Opposition. Had he made his position clear—I do not mean by sending a letter to Captain O'Neill for him to wave on television—by using every connection between the Conservative Party in this country and the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, this argument that Captain O'Neill was stalling for time would have been rendered invalid.
At the Labour Party conference in Blackpool last year the Prime Minister said that the Labour Party is a party of civil rights. I believe that this is so. We cannot stand by and see the poorest people in Northern Ireland, those who are unemployed in Derry, the worst housed people in Derry, the people with very little hope, beaten to the ground and their desire for constitutional reform thrown into extremist channels which they do not want, and which their moderate leadership does not want them to follow.
The sands of time are running out and we look now to the Government for action. This action should not stop at sending troops but should embrace detailed consideration of the constitutional relationship between the two countries, and whether it is right to allow the Government in Northern Ireland, which is discredited and mistrusted, to operate in the most sensitive area of the control of the police.
There is a difference of attitude in the way in which people in this country regard my right hon. Friends compared with the attitude of the minority population in Northern Ireland towards their Ministers, from Mr. Craig onwards, in the control which they exercise. The situation now is one of extreme urgency and I look for decisive steps from the Government.
It is a sad comment that we are discussing these basic issues which should have been eliminated many years ago. If the feeling of the Government and the reflection of our political party were

followed in Northern Ireland, this would lead to a better life, to freedom and tolerance, civil liberties, better education, better jobs, better housing, which are what the civil rights movement was born to achieve.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: ; I join in the congratulations that have been paid to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Since the time of F. E. Smith I do not suppose that the House of Commons has listened to such an electrifying maiden speech. I would also congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker and, indeed, the House, on having acquired such an addition to our body. As long as the House can attract qualities of courage, eloquence and sincerity then there is some hope for us yet. I would merely say to the hon. Lady that not all of us with hyphenated names are necessarily totally irredeemable.
The situation in Northern Ireland is dangerous but not desperate, and it is essential for all who genuinely care for the future of Ireland to measure their words carefully and avoid all inflammatory utterance which would make the situation worse.
No citizen of the United Kingdom can be indifferent to the fate of Ireland, with which our history has been so tragically interwoven for many centuries. Least of all can those who by family and faith are connected with Ireland be indifferent to what happens in Ireland, whether it be in the South or in the North.
The most helpful contribution one can make in a short compass is to try to disentangle the issues which are involved in the debate. The first issue is of maintaining peace, security and order in Northern Ireland, and no one who wishes to avoid chaos there can doubt that the Home Secretary's decision to commit troops to guard key installations was right and that he acted with wisdom, resolution and speed. Hon. Members of this House can best back him up by their condemnation, as a corporate body, as the House of Commons, of the use of violence in any part of the United Kingdom as a means of political action. Let no one in Northern Ireland be in any doubt about it: violence is only justified when no constitutional means of redress are available. That is not the case in


Northern Ireland, whatever else may be the case there.
At the same time, this House is entitled to say to the Home Secretary that the use of British troops should be kept to a minimum, because no one can regard the spectacle of British troops being involved in Ireland without a feeling of dismay. As The Times said in a perceptive leader this morning:
Seven centuries bear witness to the fact that English initiatives in Ireland, even on those rare occasions when they have been well-intentioned, make matters worse not better.
The second point that I want to make is that injustice is perpetrated against Catholics in Northern Ireland. They are denied the equality of the franchise in local government. They are discriminated against—

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I will not give way—

Sir Knox Cunningham: This is quite untrue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: They are discriminated against in housing and employment and until now in important respects they have been second-class citizens in the land of their birth. That is wrong, and it should not continue. It should be condemned unequivocally from this side of the House. It is my duty to speak out and I will speak out.

Sir Knox Cunningham: It happens to be quite untrue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Ulster is an integral part of Britain, and the same standard of justice and equity must prevail in the Six Counties as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The situation there is being remedied. A programme of reform of very great importance has been initiated, and it must continue and be accelerated. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has cast some doubt upon the contribution of Captain Terence O'Neill, and she used very effectively the weapon of mockery against him. But it was a weapon being used in a vacuum, because she used it with no consideration for the difficulties in which the Prime Minister of Northern

Ireland finds himself, where literally he is caught between two fires.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland who, to advance the welfare of his province, has put his own personal career at stake. How many hon. Members of this House can say the same? More than that, he has put the future of his own party at stake for the sake of the future of Ireland. It is not exaggerating to say that his contributions to Ireland bears comparison with the greatest contributions that have been made by Irish patriots in the past. He has made clear to the people of Ulster that the choice is between ordered progress and reform on the one hand and regression to another dark age when the dinosaurs, be they orange or green, would be free to roam again at will.
The third point that I wish to make concerns the Constitution of Northern Ireland. I cannot pretend that I regard partition as the ideal solution. It was a child born of necessity, born of the need to avoid bloodshed and chaos. But I regard it as unequivocally preferable to the bloodshed and disorder which is the only alternative. For the foreseeable future, Ulster will remain linked with Britain, and no greater disservice to the people of Ireland could be made in this situation than to suggest that the policy of any British Government would be other than to support the Constitution of the United Kingdom in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland.
That is why I would characterise the remarks of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) yesterday as unhelpful and irresponsible. He was giving the impression that the Border might soon be abolished. While I might take that from certain hon. Members of this House, I cannot take it from an hon. Member who held high office in the present Administration and who, when he had the opportunity, did nothing to put those words into effective action.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the long-term future and prosperity of Ireland and of these islands as a whole might be resolved by a united Ireland?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that point, and it is one on which I intend


to conclude. I will come to it in due course.
At the present time, if the extremists on either side in Northern Ireland thought that the resolution of the Government was weakening on this point, it would be the signal to precipitate, each for their own ends, a civil war.
Finally, I ask if it is not time for the forces of moderation on the Catholic side in Northern Ireland to make their contribution to supporting the lawfully constituted State of Northern Ireland—I do not say the Government. Is it not time to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's? Should not Cardinal Conway, an enlightened and far-seeing prelate, make some suggestion in this regard? In the present situation, nothing could do more to abate sectarian bitterness than a constructive initiative from the Primate of All Ireland.
Hatred and violence will never abolish the Border. It will only strengthen it. If the two parts of Ireland are to come together, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), envisions, at some time in the distant future, in a new arrangement of which only a dim outline can be discerned at present, then it must be preceded by the creation of a new unity of the spirit in Ireland. It is only that kind of unity that can transcend manmade boundaries.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I want first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) on her excellent speech. There is not an individual hon. Member on either side of the House who can fail to be impressed by the utter sincerity and concern that she has expressed on behalf of her constituents. Having heard her, I believe that the Government must take effective steps. Such a voice cannot go unheard. She has appealed to the House this afternoon. She has placed the responsibility for all that happens in Northern Ireland fairly and squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of this Government.
I remember clearly when I was first elected to this House. In the course of my maiden speech, I pointed out many of the problems existing in Northern Ireland. I appealed to every hon. Member, irrespective of his political party, to

find out for himself whether I was exaggerating or understating the position. I appealed for a deputation of Conservative, Liberal and Labour Members to go to Northern Ireland to see for themselves what was happening in what is alleged to be part of the United Kingdom.
In the months following, I accompanied certain Members on this side of the House to Northern Ireland. Among them were my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) and upwards of a dozen others. I took them to Strabane, to Derry, to Dungannon and other parts to see for themselves. They came back and reported to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. In one report, they said that they considered the situation in Northern Ireland to be "absolutely appalling."
If it was right for those hon. Members to go to what is alleged to be part of the United Kingdom, it was the bounden duty of other hon. Members representing the Conservative Party to go to see the conditions existing there. In 1966, in Trafalgar Square, I predicted that unless the situation was remedied, unless social justice was made available to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, the people would take to the streets in defence of their own fundamental feelings.
On that occasion I was violently attacked by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). He took a certain phrase out of context in my speech and circulated it to every hon. Member of this House. I was charged with advocating violence—with bringing the bomb, the gun and the bullet back into Northern Ireland politics. What I was saying—and it has been proved correct today—was that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who had been oppressed by Unionism for so long would no longer tolerate these conditions. The fact that we have in this House this afternoon a 21-year old Member of Parliament representing Mid-Ulster proves conclusively that the younger generation in Northern Ireland is not prepared to tolerate the conditions under which their parents were forced to live.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me.


I have his words here. The provocative words that he used were that people
are quite entitled to take what means they can.
That shows that he at least bears partial responsibility for the hooliganism in Londonderry over the weekend, plus the explosions and damage to the reservoir and other property.

Mr. Fitt: What I said was that the people who had been oppressed by Unionists for so long would be entitled to take whatever means they could to redress their wrongs. I said it in this House. I do not retract a word of what I said then.

Mr. Stratton Mills: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The debate is very short. I hope that hon. Members will keep their speeches short and allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) referred to a speech made by Martin Luther King. To quote Martin Luther King again, he said that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. There are many injustices in Northern Ireland and it is the responsibility for this Government to remedy them. For 48 or 49 years, since the partition of Ireland, people have looked to this House in the hope that it would take some effective steps to ensure that social justice would be made available to all citizens in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary found it necessary to come to the Dispatch Box to make the statement that British troops were to be used in Northern Ireland. It appeared to me that the Government were more concerned about what would happen to the British troops going into service in Northern Ireland than with one and a half million of Her Majesty's subjects permanently demiciled there. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is untrue."] It is not. It is true.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, Whe the civil rights agitation first began—I presume he meant on 5th October—said that he believed that there were

honest and sincere men who were concerned with bringing about reforms in Northern Ireland. I believe that I could be included amongst those persons.

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Fitt: I was suggesting on 5th October that we in Northern Ireland should have one man, one vote, and we should have the same system of franchise that operates in this country, that there should be a fair drawing of electoral boundaries, that we should have the Race Relations Act, that jobs should be given to people on merit and qualification without consideration being given to their political allegiance, and that homes should be built for the thousands of people all over Northern Ireland, but particularly in Londonderry, who had been waiting for years but were denied homes, not because they did not need them, but because a vote went with a house in Northern Ireland and those votes could possibly be used to unseat the Unionist Government, particularly the local government in Londonderry.
Yesterday the Home Secretary spoke about the reforms which had been promised by the Unionist Government at Westminster. It cannot be denied that Londonderry, since partition and for many centuries before, has always had an anti-Unionist majority. Of the people who live in Londonderry, 75 per cent. are hysterically opposed to the Unionist Party, but they are controlled by the Unionist local authority because of the most vicious classical gerrymandering which exists in any part of Europe today. In Londonderry 25 per cent. control the 75 per cent. majority.
We were asking for one man, one vote at local government level, which would mean that the majority of the population of Londonderry would have control of their own council. But Londonderry means so much to the Unionist Party. It is so steeped in the Unionist mythology of 1690—the breaking of the boom and the apprentice boys—that it is the right arm of Unionism. Under no circumstances will the Unionist Party allow democracy to have its way in this city. It is the right arm of Unionism and they cannot afford to lose it.
The Commission for Londonderry was regarded as a reform by the Unionist Party and it was also regarded as a


reform by my right hon. Friend yesterday. What happened was that those who were opposed to the vicious gerrymandering in Londonderry made it known to the outside world, and, since 5th October, people in Britain have begun to notice the significance of the population figures in Londonderry. The Unionist Party then said, "You have made it impossible for us to control Londonderry, but we will make sure that you do not control it. Therefore, we will have a Commission".

Mr. Henry Clark: rose—

Mr. Fitt: That is not a reform. The majority of the people in Londonderry, who are anti-Unionist, should control Londonderry. The Commission is not the answer. The Commission is a negation of democracy. The only reason the Commission was brought into being was to stop the people of Londonderry controlling their own affairs.

Mr. Henry Clark: rose—

Mr. Fitt: Yesterday evening on television, and here again this afternoon, we heard this hoary old tale about how the I.R.A. has attacked the constitution and the State of Northern Ireland. We also repeatedly hear in Northern Ireland how Ulster won the war with the United Kingdom. There are so many captains, majors and colonels flying around in Northern Ireland that people would think we were living in an absolute military dictatorship. Indeed, when one enters the Stormont, one does not know whether to bow or to salute.
We have heard how the State has been under Beige. It is rather strange that the places where the explosions have occurred have made it necessary for British troops to be brought in. The explosions occurred at Loughgall, in County Armagh, and in Kilkeel in County Down. Neither of those areas could in any way be regarded as nationalist areas. Only this morning I received—

Mr. Henry Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fitt: No. Only this morning I received confirmation that it is a well known Unionist Party trick, every time it finds itself in difficulty and to justify recruiting 1,000 members of the B Specials, to create explosions. There is absolutely no doubt—[Laughter.] I

have heard this horse laugh before and it is very suitable to the hon. Member.
The full responsibility for all matters, persons, places and things in Northern Ireland rests under the supreme jurisdiction of this House. I hope that this Government will now see the dangerous situation which exists in Northern Ireland. I have tried, in the three years that I have represented my constituency in this House and my other constituency at Stormont, to say that British standards should be made applicable to all citizens of the United Kingdom. If it is good enough for Doncaster, it must be good enough for Derry; if it is good enough for Birmingham, it must be good enough for Belfast—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] We want exactly the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by all other citizens in the United Kingdom.
If the Unionist Government—I am now making the most serious statement that I have ever made and I make it in the full knowledge of where I am speaking—can exist only by having the Draconian Special Powers Act to support it, by denying social justice to the 40 per cent. minority in Northern Ireland, by discriminating in jobs and houses, if that Government can exist only by having all these standards to support it, that Government has the right to be overthrown. It is the moral duty of anyone who believes in Christianity and of anyone who believes in social justice to overthrow such a structure, which can exist only with such legislation to protect it.
A very serious situation exists in Northern Ireland. I realise that, within a matter of hours, many people in Northern Ireland will once again be taking to the streets. This has been brought about by 40 years of frustration, 40 years of being trampled underfoot by what my hon. Friend the young Member for Mid-Ulster has repeatedly called in her election addresses, "the Unionist ascendency class"—a class and Government which has maintained itself in power by deliberately creating sectarian strife in Northern Ireland.
I have said repeatedly from this bench and in other ways in my public life that the ordinary Protestant and Catholic in Northern Ireland would be prepared to live in peace and amity and accord, were it not for the machinations of the Unionist Party. How ridiculous it is


today that Paisley supporters, many of whom do not have the right to vote themselves, should be taking to the streets to prevent the implementation of the principle of one man, one vote. They have been deluded by the Unionist Party for far too many years and I believe, irrespective of what is happening in Northern Ireland now, that this Government must take very cogent steps to remedy the situation.
Addressing the Labour Party Conference last year, the Prime Minister said, "We are the party of human rights. We stand for the dignity of Man." I ask the Prime Minister to apply a little of that philosophy to the six north-eastern counties of Northern Ireland. If the British Government refuse to accept their responsibilities, they must be held responsible for the very serious consequences which will arise in Northern Ireland from today onwards.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I rise to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), which, I say frankly to him, was full of falsehoods, and one of the most disgraceful speeches that I have heard, even by his standards. He referred to his speech in Trafalgar Square some time ago and I should like to remind him of the words that he used then. He said that people would be
… quite entitled to take what means they can …
and went on to say that he hoped that it would not be necessary to shoot brother Irishmen." The inflammatory nature of those words must be considered as part of the background of violence which has erupted in Northern Ireland over the last few months.
I would remind the House that, once again, he returned to this theme of working outside the democratic and constitutional framework—

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of falsehood in the House. It was indicated to him from this side, informally, that this was out of order. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule upon that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless the hon. Member was reflecting on the personal integrity of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), it would not be out of order.

Mr. Stratton Mills: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I ask the House to give me a hearing, as it has given it to other people in this debate.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member said that the Government of Northern Ireland "had a right to be overthrown". I do not know whether he meant by constitutional or by violent methods, but I appeal to him—I do not wish to make too much of this—not to use that kind of language in the situation which we face today in Northern Ireland. It can do nothing but harm.
I find the atmosphere of this debate one of great sadness and I hope that it will not be used by hon. Members opposite for political opportunism. This is the most serious debate that we have had for half a century on Irish matters and I hope that no words will be used to stoke flames this afternoon and that all hon. Members will aim at the reduction of temperatures.
I accept that Northern Ireland is not perfect. Accusations are made against us and I certainly would not wish to deny them all, but I wish to ask, what part of Britain or indeed, of the world is perfect? The Unionist Government under Terence O'Neill is moving in the right direction and I believe that nationalist grievances, real or imagined, have disappeared, are disappearing or will shortly have disappeared.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) referred to the civil rights movement and its composition. There are the constitutional leaders, people like John Hume, who must be worried by the way in which things have been developing inside the movement. There is the Republican, Communist, I.R.A., Trotskyite element, which is very small, but has immense influence in the body and then there is the hooligan element, which has become particularly active and violent in the last few days.
Reflecting on the affair at Londonderry over the weekend, my hon. Friend referred to the young people who were involved. The Press pictures, which I have here, make this point extremely clearly. Most of the people involved in the stone-throwing were in their teens. I was struck by a picture of a civil rights marshal, a man of slightly older years, with blood streaming from his face, trying to restrain young men from throwing stones.
One point which has not been mentioned today, and which is extremely relevant, is the type of weapons which were used over the weekend. The Belfast Telegraph correspondent referred to looting, to home-made spears fashioned from steel bars, to washers ground to a razor edge—they can scarcely have been produced spontaneously—to chunks of iron grating littering the roadway, and to bricks, bottles, stones and petrol bombs. I ask the House—are those the normal weapons of the peaceful civil rights demonstrator? Are those the spontaneous weapons which the civil rights demonstrator falls back on, or had they been organised well in advance of these incidents?
My hon. Friend referred to Martin Luther King. Did Martin Luther King throw stones, petrol bombs or spears? His method was one of peace.
There are many Members of Parliament who would do well to condemn this violence. It would be as well if the hon. Member for Belfast, West would strongly condemn the acts of hooliganism which took place in Londonderry and condemn the I.R.A. violence over the weekend. He is silent.

Mr. Fitt: I will condemn any acts of hooliganism which took place in Derry if the hon. Gentleman will give me a quid pro quo. Does he condemn the people who gathered at Burntollet Bridge last Saturday, with the intention of beating up defenceless civil rights marchers, when the Minister of Home Affairs said that he could not give protection because of the possibility that guns would be used. Does he condemn that type of action?

Mr. Stratton Mills: I made it perfectly clear in January that those people who organised violence against civil rights

marchers at Burntollet Bridge were totally in the wrong. I make that clear again. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his influence to bring down the temperature. It is easy to throw a stone or to make a petrol bomb and throw it, but the next stage will be the squeezing of triggers, the use of hand grenades and more serious weapons. This is what must be in the mind of those who are dealing with the situation.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the police. I believe that on this occasion they did a fine job under gross provocation and acted with much restraint. The extent of their injuries, as compared with civilian injuries, bears this out. It would not be unfitting if we were to have some tribute from the other side of the House to the restraint shown by the police on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the Unionist Government as having created the incidents over the weekend, incidents in which a reservoir supply pipe was destroyed, electricity pylons damaged, post offices burnt out and police stations attacked. It is important to put on record that the hon. Gentleman has accused the Unionist Government themselves of creating these incidents. What fantastic nonsense, without one single shred of evidence being put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fitt: What I said was that the explosions in Loughgall and in Kilkeel were not in areas known for their Nationalist sentiment. Those are the two which I mentioned, not the rest.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am sure that HANSARD will bear out the words of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is only saying what the news bureau of the I.R.A. has stated. It accuses the Unionist Government of these incidents, and I say that there is no shred of proof in such a statement. The police have made clear that these incidents were organised by the I.R.A., but the I.R.A. have denied responsibility for these incidents. Why is this? [Interruption.] How does the hon. Gentleman know that? Is he so close to them that he can tell? The truth is that the I.R.A. want those explosions to appear as a spontaneous local manifestation. That is the picture which they are trying to present.
It is also worth reminding the House that when the I.R.A. withdrew from their previous campaign in 1961, they said that they would come back to the attack. This is the occasion when they have come back to the attack, but they are wearing the clothes of the civil rights movement.

Miss Devlin: In view of the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made, he should bear in mind that during my own election campaign, in a small town known as Plumbridge, not a body of extremists, but the loyal Orange Order on Radio Telefis Eireann said that the civil rights people were getting in everywhere, and that there was nothing for the Protestant people but to take to the gun to shoot them and to use violence. There is the interpretation put upon these facts by the hon. Gentleman. There is equal reason for believing that this is the work of the Orange Order. This made it possible for Captain O'Neill to call in the British Army without losing face. It could equally have been done by the Unionist Government.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I do not want to be rude to the hon. Lady on her first day here, but if she believes that the Unionist Government organised this, she will believe anything.
I close by saying that one must constantly bear in mind in this debate the aim of the people organising these acts of hooliganism and terrorism. They deliberately wish to cause in Northern Ireland civil commotion. They wish to try to point to the breakdown of law and order to overthrow Terence O'Neill, to discredit Stormont and the police, and ultimately to bring in Westminster as the direct governing body. This is the road to disaster. I hope the message will go out loud and clear from this House this afternoon. It is that there should be no condonation of violence or of terrorism. Peace and calm are what is needed in Northern Ireland most of all.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: No one can take part in this debate this afternoon, particularly from one of the Front Benches, without feeling a great sense of responsibility. I am sure that the Home Secretary and I are at one in that.
Yesterday, just after this debate had been decided upon, a stranger came up to me in the Central Lobby. He obviously was an Irishman and, from what he said, a Roman Catholic. He said to me, "Mr. Hogg, I want you to make me a promise. I want you to promise that, if there is a debate on Northern Ireland tomorrow, you will make a speech in favour of conciliation and reform." I made that promise. If I had wanted to choose two words to represent the desire which I had in my heart that my words might achieve, it would be those two words. The man said that he was a supporter of the civil rights movement.
Before I embark upon what I have to say, in the few minutes which I propose to take, I hope that the House will forgive me if I add my congratulations to the hon. Lady, the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) on her maiden speech. She has come to us this afternoon in dramatic circumstances. When I congratulate a maiden speaker, my thoughts go back 31 years to the occasion on which I addressed this House for the first time, after a stormy by-election in which I became the centre of a great deal of controversy. I have been so ever since. I thought how much greater was the strain which the hon. Lady had had to undergo in her by-election than I had had to undergo in mine and how much greater an ordeal she had had in speaking on her first day in the House than that to which I had to submit. My heart went out to her when she spoke.
She began by half apologising for taking this course. But I am sure that she was right. We all make up our minds in this place what our duty is, but I know that had I been placed in the same situation I would have taken the same course. Indeed, she would have been wholly lacking in any sense of occasion had she not done so.
I echo what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about her courage, but I should like to tell her something. Yesterday I asked an hon. Friend of mine, "What is this new hon. Member like who is joining us?" My hon. Friend replied, "She is a very brave young woman." The hon. Friend I asked was my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who spoke just before her today and for whom I gather she entertains something


less than affection. I have known my hon. Friend rather longer than she has. He is a generous-hearted and honourable man.
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I tell her something else. She has represented very well this afternoon the feelings and passions of those who have sent her here to represent them. We are very glad indeed to find her doing this, even those of us who do not agree with the views which she utters, because this place is designed for the discussion of views. It would be a poor place if views held as strongly by so many people did not have an advocate in this House.
I hope that when she goes back to her constituents from time to time she will bring news of what we think here and of the sort of people we are. This is a strange institution, full of odd people like myself. It is almost unique in the whole world. If I were asked what its salient characteristic was, I should be inclined to say that it is the most effective institution the world has ever seen for enabling men and women to live together in peace. That is not altogether irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
The hon. Lady is genuinely welcome, even among her political opponents, and we look forward to hearing many other speeches in which she will represent her constituents as well as she has done this afternoon.
A matter has struck me which has so far not been mentioned. It is that we are not here in the presence of an isolated phenomenon. There are two Germanies, two Koreas, two Indias, two Vietnams, two Palestines, even, God help us, two Cypruses, and, at the moment, two Nigerias. Let us, if we can, stop thinking that either the Irish or the English, either the Protestant or Roman Catholic or either the Unionist or the Nationalist is wholly responsible for the present situation because he has a double dose of original sin. That is not the case.
We are in the presence of a phenomenon which has baffled mankind throughout the world. Moreover, there is not an hon. Member here who caused it. We inherited it from our forefathers. If I had been brought up in a Roman Catholic house I should be going to Mass instead of Matins every Sunday. I know that from experience, for I find it difficult to go out through another door from

that wherein I went. This should lead us to understand that we gain nothing by blaming the other side for civil disturbances in communal matters and that we have everything to gain in appealing to our own side to exercise restraint and compassion.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) when he appealed to religious leaders to add their weight to the voice of conciliation. Of all the reasons for knocking one another about, the very worst is that we are all Christians but of a different kind. If Christianity means anything in the world today—I happen to believe that it is one of the most relevant and vital of professions—it means in the end that we are all adherents to the religion of love.
I listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan). If, during my remarks, I do not mention at length every hon. Member who has spoken, I assure the House that I found a great deal to agree with and something to disagree with in every speech. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke of a bipartisan policy in this matter, which is a difficult thing when one comes to Irish affairs. The political overtones and relationships in British politics of Irish affairs do not need to be emphasised by me. We are familiar with them.
I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that the less British party politics are allowed to enter into this, the better. I do not say that that can be altogether avoided, but when the hon. Member for Uxbridge called for a bipartisan policy, it crossed my mind that some part of it already exists. When the Home Secretary announced his policy yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that he approved of what the Government had done in condemning violence and in using British troops in a passive rôle.
I add my warmest hopes that the Government of Northern Ireland will continue a reformist policy. I take a rather less desperate view of the situation than do some hon. Members, possibly because of the Irish blood which runs in my veins. It was, I think, inevitable that after the Treaty—it is a curious fact that my father made his maiden speech from the Despatch Box on the Second Reading of the


Measure introducing the Treaty—for a long time on both sides of the Border and in this House attitudes towards Ireland would freeze in the situation in which they had been in about 1914. I regard it as utterly deplorable that that should have been so. But human beings being what they are, it was utterly inevitable.
What I believe we are seeing, if we choose to look upon the hopeful side of the situation, is the breaking of the log jam, the beginning of the thaw; and this is a situation, inevitably, when stresses and strains are more and not less acute. But I look forward with the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Rose)—although I do not in the least endorse his prescription, for reasons which I will give in a moment—to the day when the politics of Northern Ireland are about housing and employment and particularly about employment, and will concern not religious profession or the Border or matters of that kind but the realities of modern life in a modern world in what is still one of our depressed areas—and not even in some ways a development area—with a proportion of unemployment which is practically the highest in the United Kingdom.
The more Northern Ireland men and women concentrate on those issues, the more completely, I believe, will the religious differences be left behind; and the realities of the situation will become the realities of modern politics in which no one desires unity but everyone is aiming at the betterment of the society in which he lives.
That brings me to the close of my remarks and to the various prescriptions which have been uttered. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry said that no Englishman was ever born who understood the Irish. In that he was at one with the hon. Lady who made her maiden speech, when she said that the common factor between all Ulstermen was that they very much disliked Englishmen who told them what they ought to do. It was then perhaps a little paradoxical that the particular remedy proposed from the Bench which had uttered these sentiments should demand that the Government of Great Britain should impose its will upon the people of Northern Ireland. I am against that, not because I do not believe that the present Government in this connection

should not aim, as I would aim, at complete equality between British subjects but precisely because I do not believe that their interference would work. I think that it would involve more and not less violence and would also involve the Government in breaches of a pledge which I personally, if I were a member of that Government, should not care to undertake.

Mr. Fitt: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in 1920 this House imposed the partition of Ireland on the people of the Island of Ireland, and in these circumstances is not the duty of the Government to ensure that citizens of the community in that part over which the Government still have control are afforded equality of opportunity and social justice before the law?

Mr. Hogg: I began my speech by saying that this was not an isolated phenomenon. I meant to add, and I do so now because it is an answer to the hon. Gentleman, that in all the cases of partition to which I referred—I believe I referred to over a half-a-dozen—the partition which exists is something which no one would have desired. Some people, of whom my father was one, disliked the partition of the British Isles. There were some—and the hon. Gentleman is probably one—who dislike the partition of Ireland. There are others, and I know them, who dislike the partition of Ulster into the Six Counties and the rest. No one has had his way. But the particular agreement which my father introduced into this House nearly 50 years ago, pleasing to nobody, has had this merit: before that time men and women of different persuasions, but who by any standards of human conduct would otherwise have been regarded as good, were dying in their own blood. And since then that has hardly happened.
I would say to hon. Members opposite who do not happen to agree with me and my Party that I have enumerated these other cases of, oppression if you like, partition if you like; but can anyone point to one in which there has been so little effusion of blood as there has been in Ireland since that Treaty? My father introduced that Bill into the House saying that he disliked it but that he did so because this Government had given their word. For nearly 50 years we have


kept our side of the bargain and we believe that it is not too much to ask that all who were parties to that bargain which has led, at any rate, to the cessation of bloodshed should also keep theirs.

Mr. John Lee: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech, but surely what is at issue is not the question of partition but the question that because the powers given under the 1920 Act have been allowed to fall into disuse, oppression will continue until a situation is reached, if it has not been reached already in Ulster, which cannot be remedied without bloodshed?

Mr. Hogg: I promised to let the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary have one minute less than he now has available to him, so I will not do more than deprive him of one more minute. No one denies that this House has the legislative responsibility imposed on it by Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. That does not give the Government executive responsibility nor does it absolve them from their pledges as to the way in which that legislative responsibility should be used. No one must be under any impression but that if we use this responsibility foolishly or imprudently, the result could be perfectly disastrous and the bloodshed, which so far we have avoided in its most deadly form, might recur. I have said what I had to say and I wish the Home Secretary an equally gentle hearing in the course of his speech to that which I have just received myself.

6.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for the manner in which he spoke this afternoon and to agree with him in his expressed view that party politics should not be any more obtrusive than is possible for us in this particular situation. All of us who are not Irish Members have only to listen to the arguments stated with equal conviction and passion on both sides of the House this afternoon to recognise the complexity of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) truly described as a tragic and delicate situation—and I agree with him. It has been a sombre and serious debate and certainly it is not my

intention to depart from the standards which have been set in the debate because I do not want by one word to make more likely the prospect of bloodshed in Northern Ireland.
I begin by referring to the remarkable Parliamentary occasion which was ushered in by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). No doubt she has now gone. I fully understand that when I recall what an exhausting Election campaign she must have had, for we have all been through that process. Then she finds herself no doubt suffering from the attentions of the Press and television—and we have all been through that process. Then she finds herself faced with the ordeal of coming here and speaking to a fuller House for a maiden speech than I ever recall in my 25 years. It all amounts to a most formidable ordeal, from which she has emerged with very great brilliance.
I am reminded of the story about my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee) who was about to address a miners' rally in Scotland many years ago when she was a slip of a girl. I did not tell her that I would recount this story because it has only just come into my mind. She said to the hard-bitten old trade union leader, "I feel very nervous". He is supposed to have said to her, "Lassie, if you feel nervous, it is because you are thinking more of yourself than of what you are going to say".
What the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster showed today was not just courage but fearlessness. The voice of the people was ringing through her. She was so concerned with what she had to say that she felt she was representing all that they had to say. That is why, although it was such an ordeal, she emerged triumphant. I am glad to have been part of this Parliamentary occasion.
The significance of the timing of this debate should not be overrated. It has been made clear in Ulster today that the governing party has had one meeting this morning and is to resume tomorrow morning discussion of the vital issue of one man, one vote. In simple arithmetical terms, there are about 900,000 Parliamentary electors and 700,000 local government electors in Northern Ireland. People on the other side of the Irish Channel should know that it is hard for


us to understand how we can deny adult suffrage in any of the elections of this country. I trust that when they meet again tomorrow morning they will take account of what I believe is a general view in the House of Commons here that what we seek, and indeed what we require, for all citizens in the United Kingdom is equality of rights, privileges and responsibilities. We cannot accept that people are part of the United Kingdom, and are proud to be so, unless those standards obtain throughout the areas which we represent.
I understand the depth of feeling which lies behind the opposition to this proposition. I say to some of my hon. Friends who have spoken that sometimes people speak as though what we have to deal with is a reactionary Ulster Unionist Government. If it were only that, the problem would be easier to solve. But it has become clear today, and it is known to everyone, that we are not dealing with a Government alone. We are dealing with deep-seated passions and fears which run through both groups and both communities in Ireland.
It might be argued that the Ulster Unionist Government, in view of the pressures being brought upon them, are willing and anxious to take these steps. I do not at this moment take sides. But we must remember—and, having stated my adherence to the principle, I seek to remember—the great pressures to which the Ulster Unionist Government are subjected by their own supporters and by those who have put them in office because of their real and genuine fears.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will realise that I wish to state the Government's position and I have very little time to do so.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree with much of what he said. Would he state categorically that the Border is not in issue?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to make my own speech. I promise to come to that point, as I regard it as most important.
The nature of the problem with which we are dealing is not ephemeral. There is a desire to secure basic constitutional rights which I think everyone in the House believe should exist in Northern Ireland. If they are not conceded, there follows the basic desire to protest. This has brought the backlash of violence which is escalating. The pattern in which we are moving is one in which grievances produce protest, protest produces violence and violence is followed by counter-violence. Attitudes are frozen into immobility. This is succeeded by more violence. The end of that road would be the complete collapse and breakdown of relations between the communities and the collapse of the system of government under which they are living. We are only in the early stages of the journey along that road, but it is imperative that, although our voice may not be heard much on the other side of the Channel, the united voice of Westminster should express itself loudly and clearly against any further progress along that path to hell.
The Government's approach—and it is the approach not purely of this Government but of successive British Governments—springs perhaps partly from what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster said. Never was born the Englishman who understood the Irish problem. The Government's approach has sprung from the simple conception that these problems are most likely to be solved successfully and permanently if the people of Ireland solve them, They have the institutions. They have a Parliament and a Government. The Government are supported by some rejected by others.
I hope that this will be accepted by Ulster Unionists in the spirit in which I say it: when a Government have been in power for 50 years, unchallenged and apparently unchallengeable, apparently without an Opposition who can take over, there is a double responsibility on those who hold that unchallenged office to rule in the interests not of half the nation but of all the nation. They have to take upon themselves the responsibilities of opposition as well as of government. They must listen to the cry of those who feel themselves to be excluded from the apparatus of Government. In the normal course of events, as long as politics follow their present path in


Northern Ireland, we cannot hope for the Government to put right their difficulties. There are no doubt people in this country who feel excluded from government as long as a Labour Government are in power. But they hope, mistakenly no doubt, that the situation will be put right. Likewise, when there is a Conservative Government, many people feel excluded. But, again, they hope that the situation will be put right.
But that is not the position in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Government are a trustee for all the people, not just for the Protestants. It is in that sense and in that spirit that I hope that the Parliamentary Party which is meeting there tomorrow morning will realise the nature of the problem which it has to solve and, despite the pressures brought upon it, will use wisdom and magnanimity to solve this problem by conceding at least this issue.

Mr. John Lee: And if it does not?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to make my speech.
I hope that I made my point in a way which does not create a backlash among Ulster Unionist Members in Northern Ireland because it is of deep significance.
I turn to the point at which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) was hinting. The Government and I recognise that the Parliament at Westminster has supreme authority under the Government of Ireland Act. But we have delegated very great authority. Therefore, the call should go out from Westminster that it is to them that we look to make the changes. They are the trustees; they have been given the responsibility. But I repeat that final responsibility rests in this House. Therefore, the Government's policy is that the people of Northern Ireland should have the same rights as citizens anywhere else in the United Kingdom to enjoy equality of treatment, to live in peace with each other and to enjoy prosperity. Those things are interdependent.
There will be no tranquillity in Northern Ireland unless there is equality of treatment. There certainly will be no prosperity unless both the other conditions are supported. So, as I have said, our rôle as a Government in this is to encourage and support the institutions in

Northern Ireland to create the conditions in which this situation can be achieved.
I turn to the question of our relations with other countries, because the Parliament at Westminster is responsible for the relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and all other countries. What I want to say about this is quite simple and clear. I repeat once more that there can be no change in the relations between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic without the assent of the people of Northern Ireland. It is expressed in the Statute through the Parliament in Northern Ireland. It is that pledge which I am repeating now, because there should be no misunderstanding about that situation; and the British Government have no intention of departing from it.
I want in the few minutes remaining to me to comment on one or two of the issues which have been raised. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that he thought that the I.R.A. had committed these offences. I must make it clear that I have no evidence to that effect. The I.R.A. is usually ready to claim what I regard as the discredit for these attacks. It has not done so on this occasion. Nor has it denied it.
I want to make it clear to my hon. Friends who may not keep up with this situation that the I.R.A. today is a very motley collection, quite unlike the I.R.A. of 30 or 40 years ago. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who follow this matter know this, but it is important that it should not be thought that the I.R.A. necessarily has the same motives or the same backing as it had many years ago.
I remind the House of what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster said about the use of a pamphlet calling for "the gun" in her by-election. This is no language to use in the situation of Northern Ireland by any political party or by supporters of any political party, because there is more than one group that can command and does command explosives in Northern Ireland today. Freedom will not grow out of the barrel of a gun.
I conclude by saying this to the hon. Lady—and I say it to her because of the remarkable speech which she made. I want to apply to her the most stringent


criticism I can as a compliment to her. I shall not say what a splendid speech it was. What I want to say to her is that I thought that her conclusions did not follow from what she had to say originally. At any rate, if they did, they would leave me in an impossible situation.
The hon. Lady said that the Ulster Unionist Government cannot solve this problem. She said that the Government at Westminster cannot solve this problem. She said that economic sanctions against Ireland will not succeed. She said that Mr. Jack Lynch and the Republic of Ireland cannot succeed in solving this problem. One day the hon. Lady may be standing here. It will not be sufficient then for her to state a series of negatives.
The Government have to take a positive attitude. The attitude which we take is quite clear. Taking into account the hon. Lady's view that perhaps we cannot be expected to understand or to know the situation as well as she and her colleagues from Northern Ireland do, we believe that it is our responsibility to use our maximum influence on the institutions which exist in Northern Ireland to secure the same standards in that country as exist here. We believe that, if we were to go further and to embroil ourselves directly in the situation, unless it became absolutely inevitable, we could well be making the very mistakes which the hon. Lady has already condemned.
In conclusion, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He made an appeal to his fellow Catholics in Northern Ireland to observe that the apparatus of the State is there to be used and that it can be used positively. Reforms have come about. More are needed. I do not cast doubt on the good will of Captain O'Neill. I paid tribute to him yesterday. He is a man caught in the cross-fires, a man who I think is subject to very great pressure. But those who want reforms should help him at the present time. That is the best path forward for Northern Ireland.

It being three hours after the commencement of Proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Proceedings pursuant to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration),

and the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

WALES

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report on Wales for 1968 (Command Paper No. 3930).
The House will miss today the attendance of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), who customarily speaks for the Opposition on Welsh affairs. I know that all hon. Members will be sorry to hear that his absence is due to ill health. He is one of the most kindly and courteous Members of the House. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
We are glad to welcome back the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He is an old friend of ours and once carried responsibility for Welsh affairs. The right hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords many a time and no doubt, with good fortune, we shall again. I am glad to see him back at his place.
This year, the debate on the Report of Government activity in Wales takes place much earlier than has been customary in recent years. The Government have done their utmost to meet the wishes of both sides of the House that the debate should be conducted at a date nearer the publication of the Report than has proved possible for some years.
Obviously I cannot today deal with the whole contents of the Report on the Government's activity in Wales. I trust that the House will allow me to begin by referring to the increased powers which have been given to the Welsh Office since 1st April. This transfer of powers marks a most substantial advance in devolution of power from Whitehall to Cathays Park, Cardiff. Ever since the Welsh Office was established in 1964, this Government have taken consistently positive action towards sensible devolution of functions. Needless to say, it is a source of enormous pleasure for me that the Welsh Office has been entrusted with these greater responsibilities at this time.
I turn to our responsibilities for health. The new health and welfare responsibilities bring to us responsibility for almost 200 hospitals and over 35,000 workers in their employ. The record of the hospital service in Wales in 1968 makes fascinating reading. No fewer than 300,000 in-patients were cared for, and even then at the end of the year some 29,000 were awaiting treatment. Nearly 800,000 of our fellow countrymen were new out-patients who had to be dealt with—30 per cent. of the population of Wales. Last year the cost of our hospital service was over £52¼ million, and for the current year an additional £4 million has been allowed. I am glad to say that of this £56¼ million no less than £8¼ million is for capital development.
In recent weeks it has been my privilege to visit many of our hospitals, and I gladly pay tribute in which I know the House will share, to the high sense of dedication and loyalty which I found in every hospital that I visited. These high ideals are not only found amongst members of the staff who often work under difficult and unfavourable circumstances but also are evident among the large body of men and women who give their time and services voluntarily, both on the Regional Hospital Board and on the hospital management committees. We cannot measure the debt that we owe to those who belong to the League of Friends of particular hospitals. I hope that the day is not far off when every hospital in Wales will have its League of Friends. I urge every community in Wales to make sure that no hospital in its area is neglected by them.
Local authority health and welfare services also come within the field of our responsibilities. In the current financial year I expect to spend £13½ million on these services, and in addition to issue loan consent for nearly £2 million for capital development.
The third broad category comprises the general medical, dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services. This year I expect the cost of these services to be in the region of £22½ million.
Not the least important of the new responsibilities are the provisions by the local welfare authorities of accommodation and welfare services for the old, infirm, and the physically handicapped. To these I attach tremendous importance.
The House may like to know that the total expenditure on the Health Service in Wales has increased from about £55·3 million in 1963–64, when we took over, to £83·5 million, an increase of more than 50 per cent.
I turn to agriculture. The change here means a full involvement of the Welsh Office in the working out of agricultural policy affecting Wales and in the administration of our agricultural affairs. In future Welsh farmers will deal with Welsh Ministers. Also, when appointments are made to bodies of agricultural importance in Wales, Welsh Ministers will be the guardians of Welsh interests.
Let it be clear that although we shall deal with grants and subsidies in Wales, and also now help to shape agricultural policy for Wales, we have in no way reduced the effectiveness of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the Agricultural Land Service, or the other professional, technical, and administrative services, available to agriculture in England and Wales. Our great advantage in being part of the United Kingdom is that we share these joint services. We shall have the double advantage of deciding our own affairs and yet sharing in the specialist knowledge, in the computer services, in the work of experimental husbandry farms, and in other ways.
Before I leave agriculture, I know that the House would like me to say something about the Rural Development Board. The House will be aware of the conclusions at which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I arrived after the most careful study of Sir Ben Bowen Thomas's Report on the public inquiry into the objections to the draft Order for establishing the proposed Board. I take this opportunity of expressing publicly our thanks to Sir Ben for a most helpful and constructive Report. My right hon. Friend and I greatly admired and appreciated the sympathetic, wise, and understanding way in which Sir Ben conducted the inquiry througout its 44 days.
Officers of the Ministry of Agriculture's Land Service are now engaged in redefining the boundary of the proposed area to take account of the changes recommended in the Report, and which


we have been glad to be able to accept. Discussions with individual farmers and landowners will, of course, be necessary, and every effort will be made to avoid, where this is practicable, severing single blocks of land that are in one ownership or occupied by one farmer. When this has been done, and a modified boundary finalised, we shall then submit a draft Order for the establishment of a Board. This Order will require an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
We know that some honest misgivings remain about the powers and functions of the Board, but I am confident that when the Board is actually in existence and operating in the way in which the Government intend, it will provide the foundation for a more prosperous future for rural Mid-Wales.
A Bill on tourism is passing through the House, and when it is approved—

Mr. Nigel Birch: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the extension of devolution. Will he tell us why he thinks the devolution of education should not take place?

Mr. Thomas: The new powers which have come to the Welsh Office are extensive and will make tremendous demands upon those who serve us in the Department. I believe that it would be a mistake to add another major Department at this stage. But the end of the road has not been reached. This is a further milestone which I believe has been welcomed throughout the Principality.
When the Bill on tourism is approved by the House I shall have the statutory right to appoint a Board in Wales to look after our major tourist industry, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will seek to speak later, will, if necessary, develop the question of tourism.
I intend tonight to make only a brief reference to housing, because I want to deal in depth with our economic development in Wales. However, what I want to say, although brief, is well worth saying, and well worth hearing.
During the period of office of this Government nearly 90,000 houses have been built in Wales. We have broken all records in providing homes for our people. The houses are there as visible

evidence of the success of our policy. While our emphasis is now moving to the improvement of our older houses, we none the less appreciate the need for a continued high rate of building for houses. One of our major problems in Wales in housing is that there are thousands of old, solidly built houses which are basically sound but which need modern amenities. I hope that this year, when the present Housing Bill is through the House, there will be the beginning of a massive attack in this field by our Welsh housing authorities, when they will be able to deploy the higher grants, and new grants, which we propose to make available.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am not trying to deny the strength of the housing figures, but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that 1,600 fewer houses were under construction in December, 1968, than in December, 1964? That is a very big drop.

Mr. Thomas: I have known the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) a long time and I regret to say that he does not improve with the passing years. [Interruption.] Gracious me! The hon. Gentleman is my next-door neighbour. We have come to a sorry pass if we cannot be rude to our next-door neighbours. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that, for the past three years, we have reached an all-time record in the building of houses in Wales.
Expenditure on the construction and improvement of trunk and principal roads in Wales amounted last year to nearly £13 million compared with £11½ million in the previous year. In the current year, our estimate provides for expenditure of over £14 million, which will be a new record for Wales. Our roads programme is rapidly expanding. This will be appreciated when I tell the House that expenditure on our roads in the four years before we came into office was £66 million but in the four years since we have been in office has been over £110 million, and is still increasing.
Since the end of last year, a major section of the New Midlands road, between Mitchel Troy and Raglan, has been opened to traffic. Work has started on the first stage of the Cardiff-Merthyr Trunk Road and on the Raglan to Usk length of the New Midlands Road. In


July, I hope to open the St. Asaph bypass in North Wales.
Parallel with all this expansion we spent over £3 million last year on smaller improvements which eased local bottlenecks and improved safety—and no one can move about Wales without seeing evidence of this work under way.
The extension of the M4 was added to the preparation pool just over a year ago. This is a plan for 17 miles of dual carriageway road of motorway or near motorway standard running from Gabalfa in North Cardiff Westwards to near Bridgend. This is probably the most important single scheme in the Welsh trunk road programme, since Cardiff is the major bottleneck to through traffic in Wales, lying as it does on the busy A48 road.
I have decided that this scheme must have first priority in my road construction programme. Of course, we must go through the usual statutory procedures before work can begin. However eager we all are for the M4 extension, no one has a right to ride rough-shod over the rights of individuals whose lands and homes may be affected. It is important that persons affected should have a chance to make their objections known and to have them fully examined. Nonetheless, I hope that these statutory processes can be completed by 1972–73 and I have made this a definite target date for beginning the actual construction work on the road. I hope that industrialists who are considering coming to South Wales will take this announcement, which is a major announcement, as an indication of the Government's determination to get this road built as quickly as possible.
The Welsh Council, under the chairmanship of Professor Brinley Thomas and the vice-chairmanship of Sir Alfred Nicholls, has sent a deputation to me about this road and has made strong representations. I hope that it will share in the pleasure at this announcement of my hon. Friends who have been pestering me in the House.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend not also aware—I think that he should be—of the other bottlenecks in some of the valleys of South Wales, particularly since the

Heads of the Valleys Road was opened? Does he know of a worse bottleneck than Merthyr Tydfil and Merthyr Tydfil Valley? The trunk road Cardiff to Merthyr Tydfil-Brecon, Builth, Wells and Pentrefoelas in North Wales has been on the Statute Book since 1945.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even Celtic interventions must be brief.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Thomas: I take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) said. There are, unfortunately, many improvements still awaited in Wales, but we must choose our priorities. The position now is that a complete new dual carriageway road of motorway or near motorway standard extending the M4 by 27 miles from Newport to Bridgend is already either in the firm programme or in the preparation pool, while three further lengths of motorway beyond Bridgend totalling about 15 miles are in addition also in the firm programme or preparation pool.
The preparation pool now contains over twenty schemes. In addition to those which I have mentioned, there are others such as the Carmarthen Southern By-pass, with its new bridge over the River Tywi, and three schemes on the A55 road in North Wales which will make major contributions to the improvement of communications throughout Wales. We shall press ahead with the preparation of all of them as quickly as possible and as quickly as our resources allow.
I turn to the question of leasehold. The House will know that I have taken a deep and personal interest in this subject and that for many years when on the back benches I pursued it in the House. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East and I are old opponents on this question. He was a great champion for Western Ground Rents in the old days. He declared that there was no evidence of hardship caused by the leasehold system. But that was a long time ago.
Our major reform which was so disliked by the Conservative Party on the ground that we were wrong to say that the house belonged to the leaseholder has become law. The leaseholder no longer has the anxiety that one day his


house may be claimed by the ground landlord. Our leasehold measure has liberated the leaseholder from that fear and insecurity.
I am aware that recent decisions by the Land Tribunal have caused some concern. It is of particular interest that the first two cases concerning South Wales leaseholders will be heard by the Land Tribunal next week. The House and the people of Wales may be assured that no one will follow with closer interest than I shall the decisions which are reached in these two cases.
The Government are already studying the implications of the earlier decisions, because leasehold reform means much to us. But I hope that what I have said will satisfy leaseholders throughout the country that the Government are aware of their concern at the recent decisions. We all await the outcome of the Tribunal next week.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Is this Tribunal to sit in Cardiff or in South Wales?

Mr. Thomas: I do not want to mislead the House, but I believe that it is in Cardiff.
I turn to the subject of sewerage. It has been a disappointment for me that, due to our continuing need to moderate the growth in capital expenditure, I have had to ask for many sewerage schemes to be deferred. Nonetheless, more sewerage schemes are now being undertaken in Wales than ever previously. In 1963–64, when we came into power, loan consents allowing a scheme to go ahead totalled some £3·4 million. Last year that figure had risen to over £8 million. The total consents for the four years from 1965–66 to 1968–69 were over £24 million. That compares with a figure of some £11½ million over the previous four years. Despite our economic difficulties we are nonetheless spending more than twice as much on improvement of sewerage facilities as only a few years ago. I realise that there is much more to do, but I think that Wales should know how we have stepped up the amount of work that is being done.
I turn to the subject of water, which is an explosive subject in Wales. Economic growth in Wales requires an improvement

of our water supplies. The ambitious scheme on the River Towy at Llyn Brianne is the outstanding example of works which are going on all the time. This scheme will be of particular importance to new and expanding industry at the Western end of the South Wales industrial area. In total I have agreed to expenditure on water schemes amounting to three times what was spent five years ago. That provides another illustration of establishing the right priorities in order to foster economic growth in the Principality.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the Welsh Committee of the Water Resources Board was recently enlarged and strengthened. Five more members representative of Welsh farming interests, industry and the Sports Council of Wales were appointed. Thus a fully comprehensive Welsh case can be put to and heard by the Water Resources Board. This is much more intelligent than setting up a separate statutory authority for water in Wales. The fact is that the rivers in Wales which offer the best conservation prospects straddle the boundary with England. Both geography, and the need to make the fullest use of professional expertise, clearly point to the advantages for Wales, no less than for England, of the common approach which we have adopted in matters of major policy affecting our water supply.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Surely this is not an insuperable problem—otherwise the right hon. Gentleman is doubting the justification for his own Department. The right hon. Gentleman's party advocated a Welsh Water Board at the 1964 General Election. Did they do do so in the full knowledge of what they now know?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. and learned Member will, I have no doubt, try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. May I say to him that it is the policy throughout Europe and the new world to treat rivers as a whole from the source to the mouth? The hon. and learned Member should know that when rivers straddle boundaries it is not possible to treat them as though they are national units on one side of the boundary or the other.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that Switzerland is in Europe and that there there are


many cases of the use of valleys in one canton by another canton for water storage and reservoirs and of the use by the lower canton of water from the higher canton?

Mr. Thomas: I know the hon. Member is greatly attracted to Switzerland and its water scheme. I want to convey to him that in these islands it is a nonsense to think that one can treat the River Severn as though it belongs in one part to Wales and in another part to England, or to treat any other river which straddles the boundary in that way.
We have made the same approach in our setting up of a Welsh Committee of the Countryside Commission. Our underlying principle is that responsibility should be shared when this would produce the best results, and a separate statutory body should be set up when that will provide the best results. Our actions in regard to the Water Resources Board and the Countryside Commission no less than our proposals for a statutory Welsh Tourist Board all indicate a realistic approach to devolution. In each case what we are seeking is to obtain the greatest benefit for Wales.
I turn to economic affairs. When I was appointed to this office just over a year ago I said that my top priority would be to seek to ensure more jobs for the people of Wales and a more diversified industrial structure in the Principality. That task is still one of my top priorities, not only because unemployment in Wales has continued to be at a level higher than the national average but also because we are still faced with a loss of job opportunities in the coal, steel, agriculture and transport industries.
The year 1968 was an outstanding year in terms of attracting new industry to Wales and the expansion of existing industry. Nearly 280 applications for industrial development certificates were approved by the Board of Trade covering nearly nine million sq. ft. of new factory space and promising over 18,000 new jobs for the people of Wales. That was the achievement of 1968 alone. This is an impressive achievement by any standard and it is recognised as such by all those who prefer to trade in facts, but it is not recognised, of course, by the carping critics who exploit grievances. But 1968 was no "flash in the pan". It was, in

fact, the third succesive year of outstanding gains in industrial development certificate approvals. In the last three years nearly 24 million sq. ft. of new factory space has been approved. In these three years alone as much new factory space was approved in Wales as in the eight years leading up to 1964.

Sir Keith Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of square footage approved is in his judgment normally to be expected to be constructed?

Mr. Thomas: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait, he will find that I have many statistics to give him, although I fear that that is not one.

Sir K. Joseph: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that on the basis of his 25 million sq. ft. approved in the last three years, probably over the next three years about five million sq. ft at most, that is 20 per cent., will actually be built? I am taking the record of the last four years and comparing approvals with construction.

Mr. Thomas: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman rose then, because he has fired his shot into the air to come down we know not where. I shall be able to explode his argument as I go along.
I refer, first, to advance factories. I am not proposing to go into details about them except to say that the value of this particular facet of our policy has been justified beyond doubt in the past 15 months. Last year 15 advance factories were let in Wales, and another four have already been let since 1st January this year. Negotiations are proceeding with industrialists for the letting of a further five advance factories. Such has been the success of advance factories that we have approved the building of another six, each of 25,000 sq. ft.
Advance factories have a vital rôle to play in our efforts to stem the drift from Mid-Wales, and to foster the growth of key centres. Last week it was announced that a further advance factory, of 10,000 sq. ft., was to be built at Rhayader. This is part of the strategy for expanding the town. I am pleased to tell the House that an advance factory, also of 10,000 sq. ft., is to be built at Bala on land which the urban district council has, with considerable foresight, acquired for


industrial development. This makes a total of nine advance factories authorised for Mid-Wales by the present. Government, and represents a major contribution to the solution of the employment and depopulation problems of the area.
There are those who say that although we are doing better than ever before in attracting new industry into Wales we are still not doing well enough, and that other areas are doing better—in other words, that Wales is not getting a fair share of the industrial cake.
I should like to give the House some figures so that our achievements can be looked at against the background of the sum total of new industrial development in Great Britain. I shall take as a starting point the fact that the number of employees in Wales represents about 4½ per cent. of the total employee population of Great Britain. That is the basic figure—4½ per cent. I am pleased to be able to say that in the last four years the Welsh share of all the new factory space approved in Britain has been nearly 9 per cent., that is, nearly twice what our fair share is, calculated on the basis of employee population. And in this same period our share of the additional jobs expected to arise from new industrial development approved was nearly 12 per cent.
I think the House will agree that 9 per cent. of the total area and 12 per cent. of the total number of jobs compare very favourably indeed with the basic figure of 4½ per cent. of the working population.
Hon. Members may, of course, claim that there is nothing extraordinary about these figures since they simply reflect the fact that most of Wales is a development area, whereas most of England is not. Let me, therefore, consider how the Welsh development area has fared in comparison with development areas generally. The Welsh development area contains about 13 per cent. of the insured employee population of all the development areas. Thirteen per cent. is the basic figure against which we should consider our performance. In the last four years the Welsh development area secured 19 per cent. of all the new factory space approved in the development areas of Britain, and 21 per cent. of the additional employment that has resulted.

Sir K. Joseph: Resulted?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, resulted. These are impressive figures—

Sir K. Joseph: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "resulted"? Does he mean the mathematical multiplication per thousand feet approved of so many workers, or the net addition to industrial employment? Which?

Mr. Thomas: I am referring to the increase in industrial employment.

Sir K. Joseph: The net addition?

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps even more important than the quantity of industrial development gained by Wales is its quality. It is in this respect that we have seen a transformation in recent years. In the past, as hon. Members will know, a great deal of the new developments established in Wales comprised small subsidiary and branch factories of manufacturing concerns based outside Wales. I remember saying from the Front Bench opposite that we did not want dolls' eye factories in Wales; we wanted substantial industry.
The situation now is entirely different. The present Government's regional policies have brought about a dramatic change, and we now see more and more major units being established, and an increasing number of lock, stock and barrel moves by firms from England into Wales.
These acquisitions to our industrial structure cover a wide range of modern technological industries and will themselves—simply by being in Wales—generate secondary industrial activities which are such a feature of the more prosperous parts of Britain. The new industrial structure now emerging in Wales will create its own spin-off establishments further to strengthen the Welsh economy.
What is especially encouraging is that the pace of industrial development referred to in "Wales: 1968" is being maintained this year. In the first three months 82 new projects were approved, with an estimated additional employment of over 6,000 jobs to be expected.
Let me run quickly over some of the main announcements made so far this year. In January, Delaney Gallay Ltd.


was allocated the 145,000 sq. ft. Board of Trade factory at Ammanford; the 50,000 sq. ft. advance factory at Kenfig was allocated to British Rotatherm Co. Ltd.; a 10,000 sq. ft. advance factory at Maesteg was allocated to John Barnsley and Sons Ltd.; and Natgas Ltd. announced a major development in the Bargoed/Blackwood area.
All that was in the month of January.
In February a 50,000 sq. ft. extension by the Board of Trade for Firth Cleveland Extrusions Ltd. at Pembroke was announced. The Board of Trade also announced that it was to build a. 60,000 sq. ft. factory at Abercanaid, Merthyr, for E. Camelinat and Co. Ltd., and Tudor Accessories Ltd. announced its 100,000 sq. ft. project at Maesycwmmer, near Ystradmynach.
In March there were announcements of a 42,000 sq. ft. extension to the Floform Parts Ltd.'s factory at Welshpool; the allocation of a 25,000 sq. ft. advance factory at Merthyr Tydfil to G. N. Burgess and Co. Ltd.; the sale to Broom and Wade Ltd. of a 25,000 sq. ft. advance factory at Ystelyfera—and an extension of 10,000 sq. ft. to the factory as well as the acquisition of adjoining land for further expansion; and a 21,000 sq. ft. extension by the Board of Trade for Pyrene Co. Ltd. in the Rhondda. Those are three good months for us to report to the House.
It might interest the people of Wales to know that today no fewer than 66,000 of our people work in factories owned by the Government—jobs that we would never have had were it not for Government policy and initiative.
These are only the main developments. There are many other smaller ones, all adding up to clear evidence of the strengthening of the economic structure of Wales. These successes can be directly attributable to the Government's regional policies, which involve strict controls on new industrial development in the congested areas and generous cash and other incentives in the development areas.
With a large part of Wales scheduled by the Government as a development area, a substantial part of Wales designated as special development areas, where even more generous assistance is available, we have indeed gained much

which we would not have had if we had not had this Labour Government. The like has never been seen before. There has never been a period of industrial development in Wales comparable with what has happened in the past 15 months, not since the early days, at least since the sinking of the coal mines, and we are in a different era now.
My aim is to ensure that needs for further economic growth are met fairly and fully throughout Wales. Hon. Members will know that the Report of the Hunt Committee is in our hands and that the Government will be publishing it this week. I can say no more about this today, other than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will be making a statement then about the Government's aims and conclusions on the report. Assistance to industry in Wales is running at an all-time record level, and is likely to increase as the recent high levels of industrial development certificate approvals are translated into buildings, plants, machinery and jobs. Financial assistance to Wales will soar higher and higher.
Last year investment grants paid to industry in Wales totalled more than £38 million, over £31 million of it to firms in the Welsh development area. The regional employment premium and the selective employment payments were worth about £14 million to Welsh industry. In addition, about £3,500,000 was paid in respect of building grants. Over £4 million was paid in loans and general purpose grants and nearly £500,000 in training grants. This made a grand total of over £60 million and that is not the end of the story.
There were also the rent-free concessions by the Board of Trade, help for Government training centres, the deferment of colliery closures, the scheme to help redundant miners over the age of 55, the extra coal-burn at power stations and the Government's contracts preference scheme which, together with the direct financial assistance, represents a tremendous effort by the Government to help us in Wales overcome our economic problems. The tragedy is that this vital task of restructuring Welsh industry was not commenced years earlier. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite bear a heavy responsibility for their neglect of Wales.
Despite all that has been, and is being done, I recognise that we are still faced with serious problems. There is no complacency here about the problems which remain. Unemployment is too high. We are still in the throes of the loss of jobs in our older industries. The fact is that because of the failure in the early part of this decade to face up to the inevitable run down in employment in coal, steel, transport and agriculture, we have been losing more jobs than we have been gaining. The balance is firmly shifting the other way, and, looking beyond our immediate difficulties I see for Wales a prospect of great prosperity.
The new industries coming in and the new jobs being created are directly due to the fact that we are active partners with the United Kingdom. If separatists have their way and we cut adrift from the rest of the United Kingdom, then this massive inflow of capital would dry up. Wales has everything to gain by her United Kingdom ties and the Welsh people know it. Our extremist minority, nurtured on the 19th century philosophy of separatism and nationalism ought to learn the facts of life in the 20th century.

Mr. Gower: rose—

Mr. Thomas: If I give way to the hon. Member I shall soon be blamed for taking too long.
Wales suffers today from too many prophets of doom, from too many who close their eyes to the facts of new industry that is in evidence around them. We should acknowledge the industrial revolution taking place in our time. The future of Wales will not be independent on its three basic industries, but rather on a diversified strong industrial base which will give security and employment to our people.
Let me assure industrialists, of whatever nationality, that the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people will offer them a warm and cordial welcome to come to live among us. During the past week I have had the privilege of touring North Wales. I met the local authorities representing Blaenau Ffestiniog, Pwllheli and the Lleyn Peninsula. In each case I was pressed to try to get more industry into the area. In Mid-Wales I recently met the Aberystwyth Town Council and in West Wales the Llwchwr Urban District

Council. My experience was the same everywhere, those who carry the responsibility for the well-being of the community in Wales are not found mouthing anti-English slogans. They hold out welcoming arms for incoming industry and incoming industrialists.
Obviously it is not possible for me to cover the whole Report. I want the House to know that I am proud to be a member of this Government at such an exciting time for progress throughout Wales. We accept the challenge that more must yet be done, and it will be, and is being done. I submit to the House a record of a year's activity of which any Government would have a right to be proud.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I observe at this moment that I will not be in the Chair when the back-bench debate begins. So far some 20 hon. Members wish to partake in it. This debate has started late. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called early will remember those still waiting.

7.38 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and I are grateful for the kind courtesies expressed by the right hon. Gentleman when he opened the debate. My hon. Friend hopes to be back soon, after a brief illness. The House today is divided into two rather disproportionate armies. Behind me, purely geographically, there is a mixed army which is notable for one outstanding characteristic—a creative ebullience of all sorts. Opposite, on the Government benches, sit probably one of the most conscientious and admirable groups of hon. Members in this House, who have just sustained their Secretary of State with a warm cheer as he sat down, after a rather silent response to the 50 minutes of his speech, and who despite their solidity, are privately, deeply uncertain about the relevance of Socialism to Wales today. That is why I want to subject the right hon. Gentleman's so-called progress report to a little sceptical examination.
No matter how hard the Labour Government try—and they have tried very hard—to bring help to Wales, the penalty of economic muddle is paid all over the country and particularly in Wales. There has been—and no one on


the Government benches would deny it—misjudgment and mishandling of our national economy over the last four and a half years. Partly as a result, as I shall seek to show, the jobs and the job opportunities in Wales have shrivelled below what they might have been.
Of course, we all acknowledge that there is a serious rundown of Wales' basic industries, coal, steel, agriculture and now transport. We know that the unemployment figures are relatively high. We know, moreover, from the figures—and the right hon. Gentleman did not comment on this—that unemployment now is not only larger in quantity but longer in endurance than it was. The proportion of those unemployed who are out of a job for more than eight weeks, which is surely the key index of the impact of unemployment on the family, is remorselessly rising. I say this in no party spirit. If we had had to deal with the aggregation of coal, steel, agriculture and transport rundown all at once, as Governments now have to, it would have taxed us too.
We had our share of rundown. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) sneers, but I am trying to be fair. We had our share of rundown just as this Government have had their share. When the right hon. Gentleman says with great humbug that he has no time for carping criticisms, may I recall the time when he and his right hon. Friends were on this side of the House. I remember much longer catalogues from the Government Dispatch Box of new industries coming to Wales being greeted with cries of "But when?" from this side of the House. We do not respond so churlishly to the right hon. Gentleman. We are glad that new industries are coming to Wales; we welcome them.
In this decade, unemployment has been 3 per cent. or less for eight out of 15 Tory quarters and for eight out of 18 Socialist quarters. In other words, unemployment has been over 3 per cent. for substantially more time under Socialists than under a Tory administration. Unemployment is larger and unemployment is longer.
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us what his Government are doing about retraining. Perhaps the hon. Lady the Minister of State will cover retraining, because this is an important aspect of the

treatment of unemployment. I hope that the hon. Lady will not flinch from telling us in considerably more detail what is the prospect on the steel front. We know the remorseless rundown of coal, agriculture, and transport, but the future of steel is buried in a certain amount of understandable obscurity. Has the B.S.C. taken the opportunity to work out the impact of redundancy in South Wales steel plants? Will the hon. Lady tell us as much as she can both about North Wales steel and South Wales steel?
I turn now to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's claims. I hope that hon. Members will have absolutely no doubt that they were paper claims based upon paper approvals. On the whole, I am all in favour of paper approvals being a larger amount of paper each year than the year before, but it is the translation of I.D.C. approvals into actual factory completions that mattters to the people of Wales, and if the right hon. Gentleman had presented his story in terms of completions it would have been a different story. Again, it is an example of hypocrisy to make a 50-minute speech based in its economic content entirely on factory approvals, when the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that completions present a very different story.
I have analysed the contrast between approvals and completions for the Tory and the Socialist periods of office during the last nine years. I am sorry that there are eight figures to give, but they are relatively brief. Between 1960 and 1964, in the Tory period, the approvals were in aggregate for 15 million square feet, to yield 37,000 jobs. The actual building during that period was of 17 million square feet, that is more than the amount approved, and it actually provided 40,000 jobs. During the Socialist three years the approvals were for 20 million square feet to provide 42,000 jobs. The actual completions were only of 5 million sq. feet to provide 15,000 jobs.
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that the first two Socialist years were a legacy from the last Tory years. That is perfectly true and it may be that that palliates the poor Socialist performance. It may be that we left the Socialists with relatively few in the pipeline. I have not examined that. All I know is that one


of the largest movements of jobs to Wales inherited by the Socialists was largely pioneered by Tory Ministers—and I am thinking of Lord Brecon and Fords. I want to be as fair as I can, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with me when I say that there is a big contrast between completions and approvals.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past three years 53,000 new jobs have been created in Wales. Those are not paper jobs; that figure represents people working in jobs.

Sir K. Joseph: It may be so—jobs; but we were talking of industrial manufacturing jobs, and the right hon. Gentleman was talking about industrial approvals. I have in front of me the Welsh Digest of Statistics and for the last three years the total additional jobs provided by industrial building completions added up to 15,000, a perfectly respectable figure. The 50,000 must be the gross addition of all sorts of other jobs, some no doubt in the despised service category, but when dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's claims of industrial jobs, the digest says the number is 15,000 in the last three years.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to be corrected if he is wrong. I am trusting to my memory, but I believe that the allocation of the factory at Swansea by Lord Brecon was not to Fords. It was to another firm and that other firm vanished. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), as President of the Board of Trade, and I as Secretary of State, provided the factory at Swansea for Fords.

Sir K. Joseph: I may be wrong. I remember that my then Parliamentary Private Secretary who lost the Swansea, West seat, Mr. Hugh Rees, spent a great deal of energy trying to persuade Fords, but my memory may be slightly wrong.
There is another index by which the economic performance of the Government may be measured. The right hon. Gentleman again skirted over it. The gap between the unemployment results in Wales and the unemployment results in the United Kingdom as a whole is once again moving to Wales' disadvantage. I have all the figures for this decade in

front of me expressed as over 165 per cent. of the Great Britain unemployment average or less. There were 13 out of 16 Tory quarters which qualified below that level, whereas since the third quarter of 1964 in 12 out of the 16 quarters the relationship between Welsh unemployment and Great Britain unemployment has been over 165 per cent. So the Wales-Great Britain unemployment relationship has been shifting gradually against Wales while the Socialists have been in office.
In all these economic subjects, Wales is directly in competition for industrial jobs with the South-East, the Midlands, the development areas and the "grey" areas. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we await the Hunt Committee Report. He rested heavily on I.D.C. control. We must wait and see what the Hunt Committee says about it.
We on this side of the House believe that the essence of economic progress lies in good communications, and that is why we welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State today about the M4. We believe that the key to prosperity for Wales, as for any other part of this country, rests on two main components—confidence and communication—and it is confidence, above all, which has been lacking to industry while this Government have been in office.

Mr. William Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman's party lays such stress on communications to develop industry throughout the whole of Wales, why did it propose to close every railway line in Mid-Wales?

Sir K. Joseph: I remember being responsible with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) for preserving at least one important Mid-Wales line. But they were difficult decisions, and no doubt they can be criticised. However, this Government are carrying on with some of the same process because, ineluctably, all government is an exercise in priorities.

Mr. William Edwards: They have changed.

Sir K. Joseph: I hope not. Perhaps one sees with more detachment when one is in opposition. I have been saying all over the country that a short period in opposition, about once a generation, is healthy for a party, although I fear that


the party opposite will have a great deal more.
There are some who will say, even if they accept my criticisms of this Government's economic performance, that Wales would be better off with more control of its own economy and with less economic leverage from London. I echo the views of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be ruin for Wales if she were economically separated from Britain. But, with all diffidence, I ask a question of those who are much more expert than I am in the subject of the Welsh character. Here is a people of the greatest talent, vigour and imagination, yet individually they seem to have a distaste for economic wealth-creation. There appear to be relatively few entrepreneurs among the Welsh compared with other people. It may be that this stems historically from moral attitudes, which no one can presume to judge. But let there be no doubt that, without creators of wealth to unlock the resources that lie there, no country will prosper.
That is a riddle, but we must hope that, as security becomes more accepted, people will seek less to put their children to the old familiar respectable jobs of teaching, banks and the service industries and that more will venture, as the Scots have done so triumphantly, into wealth-creaion for themselves and their neighbours.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that it was his party which created in Wales this thirst for producing teachers and preachers. The Welsh coal owners were some of the most tyrannical employers ever experienced in the history of Great Britain.

Sir K. Joseph: But people poured into Wales 150 years ago to seek employment. No doubt life in England was very tough in those days, too. It is not for us here to rake back over history and attempt to allot blame. No doubt there was blame on all sides.
We are now faced with the phenomenon that Wales is not contributing through her own entrepreneurial citizens as much as other areas of Britain.
I come back to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and to a point for which for once, I want personally to take an

ounce of credit. It is housing. I well remember in 1963 and 1964 conducting a personal drive to encourage local authorities in Wales to enlarge their house building programmes. The Welsh Office and I carried out seminars, which were an original form of relationship between central Government and local government at that time, to urge them forward and explain the conditions in which without damage to the rates or to rents they could enlarge their programmes. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government inherited the results of that drive.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Perhaps I might take up one point with the right hon. Gentleman. His drive in 1963–64 was identical to that of his predecessor in 1953–54 which is now being described so eloquently in the Macmillan memoirs. Both were undertaken at times when electoral difficulties were anticipated. That was the sole reason in both cases. But how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that in the 10 years between 1953 and 1963, the figure achieved by Mr. Macmillan in 1953 was not maintained? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, despite the fact that 1968 was a good year for local authority housing in Wales, the Tory-controlled Cardiff Council built only 461 houses, which was the lowest figure since 1946? Is that a Tory drive on housing?

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman accuses me of electoral motives in a Welsh housing drive, perhaps I might point out to him that there were many other areas in which it would have been more profitable for me to concentrate for my party than the Welsh constituencies.
On housing, I can only comment that while the figures have been encouraging, my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was right to point out that there has been a dip. I hope that the Minister of State will explain that. In addition, the local authority mortgage situation is disastrous. In 1966, £9 million was advanced in local authority mortgages in Wales. The figure this year is estimated to be nearer £3 million.
I will not try to cover the entire waterfront. I want to finish by summarising the position as we on this side of the House see it. Undoubtedly, the Government are trying to help Wales, but


Socialist centralisation and Socialist economic chaos is ruining their hopes and their performance—[Interruption.]—I will say it again. Socialist centralisation and Socialist economic chaos are destroying the results of their own hard work in Wales. As for the Tories, we are not or should not be by our nature economic centralisers. We want to see the spontaneous creation of wealth. In a Tory economy, Wales should prosper very much more than it is prospering now.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: There is a good story to be told of Government activity in Wales, and my right hon. Friend has told it effectively. Regional policies are being successful and are beginning to show themselves in Wales. Credit should be given to this Labour Government for those policies, and I have no time for those who refuse to see that those policies are working effectively.
However, it must be admitted that there are still some areas which are very difficult. In the main, they are the old mining and tinplate areas of South Wales. It has always been difficult to provide our mining valleys with new industry when the coal has been taken away and mines are closing down. Rhondda is one of these areas. Indeed, it was named as one of the first distressed areas, but Rhondda today is not nearly as distressed as it was when the Tories were in power.
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the extension to the Pyrene factory at Ferndale. This is very welcome. I believe that the extension of factories that have been established in an area over a long period is better than some new industry coming in. It shows the confidence that those firms have, after serving in the area for some time.
Unfortunately, in the Rhondda there are still about 1,794 unemployed. Of these 1,435 are adult males, 276 women, 70 boys and 13 girls—just over 7 per cent. Notice ought to be taken of the effect of something which was recently done by the Government which seems to hide the real position in the Rhondda. I am not blaming the Government for doing this. It may be a far more effective way of putting the figures over. Rhondda has been merged for some months now with Pontypridd and Ton-yr-efail for purposes of unemployment figures. This

has the effect of reducing the figure in Rhondda without providing another job. Note should be taken of this in trying to assess the position in the respective areas.
We have an advance factory nearing completion at Ynyshir. I hope that next month we will be able to announce that we will have a tenant to occupy this factory when it becomes available. The matter does not stop there, because we will be looking forward to another advance factory. Sites are available in the Rhondda. We have one site of 20 acres at Tydraw, another of 14 acres at Ynysyfao, a site of 9 acres at Gelli and one of 3¼ acres at Standard Colliery, Ynyshir. Whilst we do not pretend to have sites for large units of 70,000 or 80,000 sq. ft., we have these units available.
All possible efforts have been made by the Rhondda Borough Council to combat unemployment. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) and I were present, with representatives of the Council, at a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to put Rhondda's point of view about unemployment. There are difficulties in areas like the Rhondda. No one need tell me that. I have lived there all my life and I know that these problems exist.
We are concerned that more is not being done to encourage further industry. It can be argued that we have the new Llantrisant Estate which is reasonably near some parts of the Rhondda, and we now have the Mint and two other factories. About 1,600 people are employed there today, whereas 18 months ago not one person was employed. This is an achievement of which we in the Rhondda and this Labour Government can be proud.
If we are inclined to build the larger units just outside our mining valleys, we must provide the roads so that people can get to them. The road communications from the Rhondda in any direction should be considered and something should be done about them as quickly as possible. My side of the Rhondda has no railway, because it has been closed. Therefore, so much more use must be made of our roads. There is urgent need for something to be done so that we can have easier ingress and egress from


the Rhondda to the top and bottom ends of the valley.
I hope that before any decisions are taken about Llantrisant New Town there will be much serious consideration, because it can have a tremendous effect on our valley. It is all very well to talk about £380 million to £400 million building a new town at Llantrisant and losing all our social capital in the Rhondda Valley.
About 75 per cent. of our people own their homes. What will happen to these people if there is a drift from the Rhondda to the new town? To whom will they sell their houses? These matters must be given serious consideration before we go on with any new town in the area, at least on the site contemplated in the Buchanan Report.
What effect will it have on the labour at factories in the Rhondda? There is little female employment. If families are to move away we shall have problems in manning the factories which rely solely on female labour. We were discussing this matter this morning with a man whose firm employs 1,600 people in the Rhondda. We could do with a few more like him who could employ that number of people.
We have just introduced as good a system of lighting in the Rhondda as anywhere in the British Isles. All this has meant tremendous cost for the local authority. But all this will be lost. Our new Penrhys housing estate of almost 1,000 houses, all to Parker Morris standards, will be of no avail if this drift is created by the new town.
I know that my right hon. Friend has tried his best. I compliment both the Welsh Office and the Board of Trade for the tremendous efforts they have made in providing employment in the Rhondda. I ask them to continue providing us with the work to keep the people in our valleys.
I wish now to say a few words about leaseholds. It is necessary to have another look at this problem, because it is causing great difficulties to many people who are being given totally unrealistic offers and cannot find the money to go to the Land Tribunal. We must investigate this and, if we cannot change the method of appeal, we should find a way of providing legal aid for our people to go there.
A matter which is causing great concern in Rhondda and which has united more people of almost every shade of opinion than anything in Rhondda's history is the threatened closure of our hospital and casualty unit at Llwynypia, which has a long tradition. I know that the Secretary of State knows this, because his own mother served on the committee of that hospital at one time. The possible closure of this casualty unit is something which the Rhondda people will not tolerate. It has united chapels, pubs, clubs, teachers. All organisations have come together in a committee to say that under no circumstances will they permit this casualty unit to be taken away from a valley of 97,000 people.
I and my colleague have received more letters, telephone calls and representations on this than on any other matter since I entered the House nearly 10 years ago. With my colleagues from Rhondda, West—both the late Iowerth Thomas and the present hon. Member for Rhondda, West—I have met almost every Minister of Health since this plan was brought forward. We have raised it so many times that we are fed up with hearing the name.
What is the real problem? No one would quarrel with the concept of a large base hospital to serve a catchment area of about 150,000 people, but we should also consider all the circumstances. All the Ministers of Health to whom we have spoken have admitted that the East Glamorgan Hospital is in the wrong place. It was never intended to serve the area of Rhondda and its 97,000 people. Indeed, in 1965, as a result of representations which we made, the then Minister of Health directed that the casualty department at Llwynypia Hospital should be maintained. It seems illogical to me, to my hon. Friend and to the people of Rhondda that this policy should be changed when the needs are the same.
We are told that this change of policy resulted from the report of the Plewes Committee, which was set up as a result of a breakdown in the casualty unit, not at Llwynypia, but at East Glamorgan. The Committee investigated for a total of one and a half days and then its report was accepted by the Hospital Board and by the Minister. I want to know why the report was never published. After all, if the needs of a new unit like this


have been investigated, the people have a right to know what the report is. Would my right hon. Friend consider publishing it?
I hope that he will also publish the report which the consultant orthopaedic surgeon has now made, and which, I understand, is being accepted by the Hospital Board. These are questions which the people of Rhondda are asking. I have argued from the beginning, as has my hon. Friend, that, in the unusual circumstances of the Rhondda, the Llwynypia casualty unit should be continued for the 24-hour service.
The roads from Rhondda to East Glamorgan are very difficult. Indeed, just after Christmas a twelve month ago, my wife was taken seriously ill and was taken to East Glamorgan. Three times in a fortnight I was unable to visit her because the roads were impassable. What hope is there for ambulances in those conditions? We are told that, because of the strain on our ambulance services, the county council cannot extend them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider these things when making his decision.
I am seriously disturbed by what I read on page 99 of the Report:
The Welsh Hospital Board appointed a consultant who carried out his own survey of the accident and emergency services and made a report to the Board. In his report, the consultant refers to his conclusion that the only effective way to develop a first-class accident and emergency service to the Pontypridd and Rhondda area is by centralising this service at the East Glamorgan General Hospital. He recommends the building of a new accident and orthopaedic centre for the area at the district general hospital, and concludes that eventually the casualty department at Llwynypia hospital must be closed, since he does not think it possible to man two casualty units in the area. He considers, however, that the unit should not be immediately closed in view of the difficulties its closure would present and the strain it would place on the ambulance service. He envisages the rôle of the Llwynypia unit during the interim period to be that of a first aid unit, supporting the main unit with restricted hours of opening. He warns that shortage of medical staff may on occasions prevent the functioning of the unit even on the limited basis proposed. The Welsh Hospital Board has accepted these recommendations. The Minister has considered them, but before reaching a decision asked for further information on the operation of the Llwynypia and East Glamorgan units.
This is very disturbing to me, to my hon. Friend and to the people of Rhondda.

In effect, it is saying that Llwynypia Hospital is to be closed—

Mr. George Thomas: I should like my hon. Friend and, through him, the Rhondda people, to know that, although the Welsh Hospital Board has accepted that report, there is no Welsh Board of Health. It has disappeared. I met my hon. Friend and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), just a fortnight ago and I repeat the assurance that I gave that no decision has finally been taken about Llwynypia Hospital. I do not see the necessity for a decision to be taken for some considerable time ahead.

Mr. Davies: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. This is something about which the Rhondda people feel deeply and I have tried to put it to him. I accept what he said, that he met our deputation and gave us a courteous hearing. Later there was a meeting of the representatives of the people. I am satisfied that our case will receive consideration. I hope that in the end we in Rhondda, with a population of 97,000 people, will be able to maintain this service which is so important to the people of the area.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State in his opening speech gave a number of figures and statistics which were somewhat at variance with those which were advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). It reminded me of the old adage that people tend to rely on statistics for support rather than for illumination. I give him one figure for illumination rather than for support. During the years 1951 to 1964—and this fact can be established—there were built in Wales during our term of office some 2·8 million sq. ft. of factory space. In the period 1965 to 1968 the average amount of factory space built has been 1·8 million sq. ft. I do not see how that can be reconciled with some of the assertions which have been made to today.
I wish to concentrate upon two aspects of the economic problems and to comment on the grotesque situation which has arisen in South-East Wales, affecting Cardiff, Newport and Barry, because of their continued exclusion from the Welsh


development area. There are also the tremendous problems in the South Wales ports closely related to the other problems of that area.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): When the hon. Gentleman talks about factory space, does he include the great steel works at Llanwern?

Mr. Gower: No, I am not referring to that. I am referring to the amount of factory space which was created during those respective years. The scope of the Welsh development area—I hope that the Secretary of State will consider this matter since his own constituency is affected by these enormous problems—has accentuated the difficulties and problems of the excluded areas. I refer not only to South-East Wales, but in some respects this also affects North-East Wales.
The effect has been particularly severe in Barry, Cardiff, Newport and in the adjoining districts. These are not towns and areas with long records of sustained prosperity. During the last 12 months the unemployment percentages for Cardiff and Barry have approximated to the employment percentages for the Merseyside development area and for the South-Western development area. Unemployment in Cardiff and Barry has constantly been rather high.
The town of Barry was built predominantly to meet the additional needs of coal exports. I need hardly remind the House how serious have been the consequences of the decline of coal shipments. The trade of the port of Barry in 1913 was more than 11 million tons. By 1950 it had fallen to 2,845,000 tons, and last year the figure was only 1,277,000 tons.
Efforts have been made to develop the port for general cargo traffic. Geest Industries Ltd. with their bananas, Cory Brothers Ltd. and other companies with their oil products, Meggitt and Price Ltd. with their timber. I cannot stress too greatly the value of such industries, but there is a serious need to replace the old coal shipments.
If we are to increase effective shipments, there is a need to widen the entrance of Barry Dock, which is a deep water harbour not greatly dependent on tidal changes as is the case with most

other docks. Two service industries in the town—the boat stores and the supply reserve depôt of the War Office—have both gone.
We have had to rely almost entirely on a declining docks and on the major industries of B.P. Chemicals Limited, Midland Silicones Limited, and some others. It has been a hard battle for Barry Council, for associated bodies and for industrialists who have made noble efforts to expand the trade of the docks and of the town. They tried to develop an industrial site known as Ty-Verlon, but the firm of agents which was appointed, which is internationally known, said, "It will be impossible for us to do an effective job in such a wide development area which includes even places like Caerphilly." There has been a loss of small firms from Barry which has been noted by the council. Some firms have gone only a short distance, but the effect on Cardiff has been serious. I therefore wondered whether the figures which we have heard take account of the movement of firms out of Cardiff. Even before this year started this movement involved 30 firms with large rateable values. This year I believe that some seven or eight have gone—if not a great distance—over the mountains to Caerphilly and Llantrisant.
I do not know whether the development area policy was meant to be an incentive to induce firms to leave Cardiff and Barry in order to go to Caerphilly or similar adjacent areas. This is a serious matter for my constituents.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that these firms have gone to neighbouring areas, or that some 30 firms have left Wales altogether? The majority of firms appear to have gone to non-development areas, which the whole of Wales must regret.

Mr. Gower: I said that about 30 firms had left the Cardiff area before the beginning of the year. I believe that another six or seven have left the Cardiff area since then. Some have gone only as far as Caerphilly; I know that certain commercial firms have gone to Bristol. I think the number is comparatively small, but the policy for the industrial area was not framed merely to induce firms to move a distance of seven or eight miles. It will be serious for the Barry,


Cardiff, and perhaps, in due course, Newport areas if firms are lost in this way. We will merely be trying to strengthen the more difficult parts of Wales by weakening the potentially strong points in the Welsh economy.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to see greater capital inestment in the Barry docks. Does he appreciate that if the Conservatives had been in power the Bristol-Portbury scheme would have gone ahead and that that would have been disastrous not only for the Barry docks but for the other docks of South Wales? Is he also aware that prominent Members of the Opposition are busy at weekends emphasising the fact that if the Conservatives were returned to power there would be an expansion of the docks based on Bristol?

Mr. Gower: We will get nowhere if we argue about the Bristol docks as opposed to the docks in South Wales. There may be a case for voluntary association between these docks. In fact, considerable money has been spent on the ports of South Wales in recent years. However, little has been spent on Barry Docks compared with other ports, despite the fact that Barry has great potential, for special reasons, and offers a valuable return on capital invested. For example, it has the supreme advantage of a deep-water entrance. When the hon. Member intervened I was referring not only to the docks but to the loss of industry, a loss which I fear has been induced by the very size of the development area of Wales. Our unemployment figures in the Cardiff and Barry areas are sometimes as high as those in some development areas, which is why certain of those areas might be excluded. Alternatively, the excluded areas could be included for development area status. Either way, there is no case for incentives being used merely to enable firms to move short distances. These are serious problems. There is a grave loss of rate income and there is already a tendency for the population to decline.
Leaving aside the question of the docks, the chief industry of the area, the steel industry—which includes such firms as Guest Keen—is under a cloud because of the rationalisation of the steel industry. This means that in the coastal strip of

South Wales we have a state of affairs which is causing deep concern to all the local authorities and to all those connected with the future of these areas.
In raising the question of the future of the ship repair areas, I appreciate that some of this issue is outside the administrative control of the Secretary of State. The ship repair industry of South Wales has been doubly hit because of the exclusion of Newport, Cardiff and Barry from the development area and because all the other ship repair areas are within development areas. This means that ship repair work carried out in, for example, the North-East, is likely to benefit from the financial help given to the development areas, including the assistance of the regional premium.
The Secretary of State said that the Hunt Committee would report shortly. I hope that some positive solutions and policies will be framed for the areas about which I have been speaking. However, whatever the Hunt Committee proposes, the Government must take the decisions. I urge that help be given to the south-east part of Wales because the situation is becoming serious. We cannot afford to wait a long period for these decisions to be made. While trying to strengthen the general economy of Wales, it would be folly to weaken the one part of Wales which seems to hold out the best prospect of becoming a truly solid base for advancement.
Some commercial firms have their own reasons for tending to centralise on Bristol rather than on South Wales. I do not wish to be parochial in this matter, but I urge the Secretary of State to appreciate that this problem is causing concern and I trust that he will keep it in mind.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) referred to a hospital in his constituency. As the Secretary of State knows, I have a similar problem in my area. It affects the Barry Accident Hospital which serves a wide area, including dangerous roads such as the road at Wenvoe. It also serves the R.A.F. establishment at St. Athan and the airport at Rhoose, in addition to the whole area of South-East Glamorgan. Local feelings about the possible closure of this hospital are as strong as those described by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East.
It would seem that there is a disposition to solve the problems of hospitals by centring large units in large cities, making it all the more difficult to get patients in for emergency treatment. With all our traffic congestion in Cardiff, as in other great cities, I should have thought it would be an absurdly dangerous step to close down an emergency hospital of this kind which treats a very large number of cases annually. This is a somewhat localised problem, like the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East, but nevertheless it is one which locally is deemed to be of tremendous importance and consequence.
As my right hon. Friend said, we are pleased at every improvement in the economic picture described by the Secretary of State, but let him not forget that a great part of Wales can never be mainly industrial. There are sections of the Principality which still rely heavily on agriculture. There are sections outside the development area which rely on tourism; and in these areas the increased Selective Employment Tax is a very severe blow. It is a severe blow to that part of South-East Wales to which I have referred, because many of the industries in Cardiff, Barry and Newport are service industries. The Government have now increased the impost on these industries which is another savage blow at a part of Wales which is already facing serious difficulties; so I hope the Secretary of State will protest or will in some other way within the Cabinet seek to reverse the effect of this further increase in Selective Employment Tax on a part of the United Kingdom which is still not solidly prosperous, and which can ill afford to bear an extra impost of this kind.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: It is already evident that one of the problems in a debate on Wales is to deal with a specific subject, because so many topics are thrown up in the debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on that remarkable performance at the commencement of the debate in reciting all the achievements of the Labour Government for Wales in a comparatively short space of time.
One is tempted to deal with a number of subjects but for the sake of brevity and for the sake of hon. Members who wish to speak it is my intention to deal only briefly with one aspect of industrial development planning and to develop to some extent something referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies). I wish to make some observations in relation to industrial development planning in South Wales in particular, and I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members representing constituencies in Mid-Wales and North Wales will excuse me if I do not refer to areas for which they are far better able to speak than I.
We are hearing a lot about Severn-side development and development on the coastal strip. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) referred briefly to that. Now, at this late stage, there is consideration of a proposal to erect a New Town in the Llantrisant area. I must say at once, in all sincerity, that it is completely beyond my comprehension how so-called experts can, in these days, go on plugging the alleged advantages of these proposals after the lessons which we should have learned from development in south-east England and the chaos in consequence of that development. If there is not a halt to the development of these proposals, we who represent South Wales constituencies will be blamed by posterity for the ensuing chaos. If Severn-side development and development of the coastal strip is to continue, and if we are to have a new town in the Llantrisant area, there will be within 20 or 30 years a vast conurbation stretching from east of Newport and west of Cardiff into the beautiful Vale of Glamorgan.
This is no parochial attitude. Growth is taking place, and will take place, in the areas fringing the coastal strip. There is no need to encourage it. In one area there is what I may call industrial indigestion. When we create great sprawling conurbations such as those which exist in the Manchester area and in the South-East, we are not creating houses which are homes, as G. K. Chesterton said some years ago, and, as I would say, too, populations which are communities. That is vital. The social cost to produce this chaos will run into hundreds of millions of £s. Those of my hon. Friends who


favour this development are very shortsighted, because the social amenities and, which is much more important, the communities already exist in the valleys of South Wales, and those who know them appreciate how vital those communities are.
In my own county of Glamorgan, excellent schools are being built, despite the shortage of funds. Industrial sites are being developed. This social capital which we are spending and which in many ways we can ill-afford to spend may well be wasted. Planners who simply spend their time working at the drawing board or examining ordnance sheets should spend a year or two in the industrial valleys so that they get to know the communities and appreciate the subject of human relations.
It is gratifying that at long last there is a salutary halt to this development. Recently, in Cardiff, there was a special conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers to consider the problem of linear development in the valleys of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. I viewed it with great hope. The Institution did not do this in any parochial sense. It realised the community value of these areas. It realised the strategic value in an economic sense of the areas north and south of the valleys. This has proved to be invaluable to the industrial development of Wales.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that development of the M4 road from Newport westwards was to go ahead. It is important that when it by-passes Cardiff it should go as far north of Cardiff as possible to link up with the valley roads, with their vital links with the Midlands.
Those of us who travel to the House of Commons early in the mornings, as most of us have to do, feel sorry for the commuter who has an hour's journey each way every day. Some people have a journey of two hours each way, often in crowded conditions. This is happening in the valleys of South Wales and Monmouthshire. Should not we try to do something to halt it? Do we want a repetition there of what is happening in the vast South-East conurbation?
Last week I attended an industrial exhibition in Central Hall. I spoke to

one exhibitor about the attraction of industry to an area which was already bursting at the seams. I asked him, "Why do you want industry to go there? We want industry in the hinterland". He said something which I have heard on many occasions: "We are providing thousands of jobs for the men in the valleys. They come daily to our area". What an approach—to induce industry to go to an area which is already bursting at the seams with industry and to deprive the areas from which the workers are drawn of their skills.
I am glad that we have a Secretary of State for Wales whose knowledge of the South Wales valleys is unsurpassed. It is equalled only by that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his knowledge of the valleys, will do all that he can to reverse the trend. I am encouraged that the Welsh Office realises the great potentials of certain of the valleys in the north around the Heads of the Valleys and the southernmost tips of the valleys. I trust that added to this will be the sympathetic appreciation of the Board of Trade.
Another aspect of industry to which I have referred in previous debates is the danger implicit in development areas from proposed industrial take-overs. Whenever the Government receive such a proposal, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues responsible for development areas will examine closely the probable effect of such take-overs before approving them. As we learned in the 1950s and the early 1960s, the development areas of South Wales are sensitive to such take-overs.
I should have liked to dwell at length on the more political aspect of industrial development and what the alternatives would be under a Tory Government. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) spoke about the spontaneous development of industry in South Wales and elsewhere. That means no development. The Tories are talking about abolishing the financial inducement to industry to go to development areas. If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) had his way, there would be no inducement. In view of the effect which the right hon. Gentleman has upon Tory policy, no


doubt he will have his way. I treat with derision the alternative of economic partition which is proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. That would be a calamity for the Welsh people. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.
My hon. Friends and I have for some months been troubled about certain anomalies which have been revealed by valuations consequent upon leasehold reform. Only today my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) called us together to discuss certain problems with a Minister. I am heartened to think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done more than anybody in the House to bring about leasehold reform, is aware of these problems. I ask him to receive a deputation of my hon. Friends very soon to discuss these problems, because the matter is urgent.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: During the past year we have had eight or nine hours in which to discuss Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House. It looks as though during the current year the number of hours allowed for this purpose will be even fewer. It is incredible that our country, which has so many problems to face, should be allowed only one day a year—and that a short day—to discuss its problems in this Chamber.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman must realise that many of the major problems of Wales are discussed on the Floor of the House day in and day out and that there is ample opportunity for those who seek to use the opportunities created in this House for the purpose to express in this Chamber the opinions and desires of our people.

Mr. Evans: Unfortunately, it is not the problems of Wales that are discussed. They are part of bigger problems which are discussed, and to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We do not get anything like the time allowed to countries comparable in size to Wales to discuss our affairs. And even when we discuss Welsh affairs, as we are doing today, we can arrive at no decision. It is merely a matter of the Government listening to what we say. We can make no decisions, because there is no legislation before us. Before 1945 we did not have even one

day on which to discuss Welsh affairs, so the present situation is an improvement on that.
There are so many problems to face and to solve that I can do no more than refer to some of the more urgent ones. Communications have been referred to, and I make no apology for referring to them again, because road, rail, sea, and air communications are the key to industrial and economic development. One of the main reasons why we have not seen in Wales the kind of economic development that we should have liked to see, and one reason why economic development has failed to match the needs and opportunities of our time, is that we in Wales are at a disadvantage compared with neighbouring regions of England when it comes to matters such as roads and railways.
That is one major reason why last year—and this is one of the facts to which the Minister did not refer in his opening speech—we had 45,000 fewer jobs for men in Wales than there were four years previously. That is one reason why unemployment remains chronically high at about the 40,000 mark, despite the heavy emigration. That is one reason why the activity rate in Wales has fallen to 47·4 per cent. compared with 57·4 per cent. in England. A fact which I elicited from a Department is that if we had a rate equal to that in England, which in itself is not very impressive, 200,000 more people would be at work in Wales. It is not merely that the rate has fallen absolutely. In comparison with England the gap is widening. There is a bigger gap each year between the Welsh rate and the English rate. Even in comparison with England the Welsh situation is unsatisfactory, and it is deteriorating. For Ministers to say, as they do time and again, that this is due to the large number of self-employed persons in Wales, and to the number of people employed in agriculture, is puerile.
The showpieces filling the Government's window—and we have heard about these again tonight—are the advance factories. We have heard a lot about millions of square feet of factory space being provided. When I asked a Question about this a few weeks ago I was told that the Board of Trade factories built and tenanted since 1964 employed


600 men and 400 women. At Crynant in the Neath area the Cefncoed colliery, which used to employ 800 men, closed the other day. There is now an advance factory in that area—it was shown on television the other night—which employs only two persons.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by indulging in that kind of talk he is undermining the efforts of the man who is running this factory? Is he aware that that man is confident that he can succeed with this factory? The kind of talk that we get from the hon. Gentleman shows that he is doing everything possible to undermine the future of the Dulais Valley.

Mr. Evans: I can understand the hon. Gentleman getting annoyed, because this factory is in his constituency. I am putting this forward as a corrective to the golden glow that we had from the Minister. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman one would have thought that everything in the garden was lovely. I am putting forward facts which help us to see the situation in perspective. One of the main reasons for the situation is the lack of development of communications.
Admittedly, there was a tremendous leeway to be made up in road construction. That is the responsibility not only of the present Government but of the English Government, of whatever colour. That leeway required that we should spend at least twice as much as we are now spending on roads in Wales. If we had a Welsh Government, even on our present income we should be able to do just that and we should, indeed, have been doing it for years. Instead, according to the White Paper, the amount is being reduced.
Not only have we failed to make up the leeway. The priorities for communications are wrong because the Government have no strategy for economic development in Wales. The Westminster Governments have spent more on the Severn Bridge than the total annual expenditure on roads in Wales. Indeed, the total estimated expenditure for next year is still less than the sum that was spent on the Severn Bridge.
We have heard of some of the results of building the Severn Bridge. Industries

have been moving from Wales—from Cardiff, in particular—over the bridge to Bristol. The Town Clerk of Cardiff has said that the city is losing not only to Bristol, but mainly to Bristol, industries and commercial headquarters worth £200,000 annually to Cardiff in rates.
Another example is the Cardiff-Merthyr road, which is to be the first section of the Cardiff-Caernarvon road, the north-south road running throughout Wales. I am glad that a start is being made at last but, at the present rate of progress, the highway will not reach Caernarvon until about the year 2,100 A.D. and the Cardiff-Merthyr section will not be finished until about 1995. In the South-West itself, we see the same sorry story of grossly inadequate highways. The congestion on the roads there is the factor which most inhibits development of the area. Hope deferred in the Carmarthen area makes the heart there grow sick.
I turn to the subject of ports on the Severn sea—a better phrase than "Bristol Channel". Bristol's prosperity was based on the slave trade, when ships were small. Now that ships are very much bigger, it hopes to maintain and develop its prosperity by means of the Portbury scheme. It can be said that this scheme is a dead duck, for the simple but sufficient reason that there is not enough water in that part of the Severn sea—the part beyond Cardiff—to carry big ships. It would mean prohibitive costs for dredging in order to take up to Bristol the huge ships now being built.
This is also a factor in Severn-side development. It is ridiculous to think that we can develop a conurbation on a vast scale there, for I do not think that any Government would be foolish enough ever to invest the vast sums of money necessary to make that kind of development possible.

Mr. William Edwards: Does the hon. Member fail to understand that Bristol has sufficient capital resources of its own to develop the port in the way it wishes? It is Government decision which is preventing Bristol from using its own capital resources to develop the port, even though the natural resources may not be of the best.

Mr. Evans: I am afraid that Providence has provided that the facts of nature are all against it. Far more


sensible would it be to develop the Swansea Bay area. That area will certainly have a great future when we get Welsh Government. It has all the natural advantages, including the tremendous advantage of depth of water near the coast at Swansea. Up to a few hundred yards of the coast there are 30 fathoms of water. The possibility is there of development of a Europort with an ideal site. Perhaps the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) would like to see such development in Blaenau Ffestiniog, but Swansea has more advantages.
One notes that the temper and antisocial outlook of British Railways in Wales is revealed by the scandalous destruction of valuable station buildings. When private persons deliberately destroy valuable property they get gaoled, but the British Railways Board, which destroys property to the tune of hundreds of thousands of £s, get C.B.E.s and knighthoods. There is a grave danger of the Board destroying one of the most important lines left open in Wales, a line which runs through central Wales.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), when he was Minister for Welsh Affairs, gave great assistance in combating a similar proposal made by the Railways Board to close the line. It is partly due to his assistance that the line was kept open. I hope that the present Secretary of State will give similar assistance now that the line is again threatened. If the Government allowed the Board to do this they would deserve to be cast into outer darkness by the people of the large area which the railway serves.
We need modernisation of railways and electrification of the lines, but that is something which we are not to have. This connects with the intention of the Government completely to reorganise the whole electricity industry. The Government should be warned that if they do not recognise Wales as an entity in this matter and establish a board for the whole of Wales which would be responsible for the generation and distribution of electricity in the whole of Wales, they will face even more serious trouble than they face now.
We also need a water board with adequate powers, not merely a water

resources board about which we have heard tonight. We need a board which could develop, control and sell water resources, as is done not only on the Continent of Europe, but in the United States.

Mr. Hooson: I have followed the hon. Member's argument with interest, but I should like to know whether he can give an example of any country which actually sells water as opposed to obtaining capital for development of a dam.

Mr. Evans: I gave the example of Switzerland where water is sold from one canton to another. This happens also between different States in the United States of America. There is no difficulty about it. Water, being one of our great natural resources, could be developed in this way for the benefit of Wales. Just as we do not get the kind of Council for Wales that Welsh people demand, and do not get an elected council but merely an advisory council, so we do not have a Countryside Commission to look after our National Parks. We do have the separate boards which are not needed by Wales. A so-called Rural Development Board is to be imposed on a part of Wales although no one except Ministry officials wants it. The purpose was bluntly stated by the Ministry spokesman in the recent hearing at Aberystwyth when he said that it is
to accelerate the formation of commercial holdings".
That is a great Socialist objective, but it is not something that the farmers enjoy and approve. It involves getting rid of the small farm, the family farm, by amalgamation. I am delighted that Carmarthenshire is to escape the Board's attentions, even though the Report of the Inquiry at Aberystwyth says that
In its early stages of operation
—note that apparently it is only then that this will happen—
the Board will need to be wise, patient and forebearing in its public relations.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to me why, when so many bodies wish to have an elected council in Wales, we do not have one? Would he care to say how many bodies wished to have an elected council?

Mr. Evans: I understand that all the political parties in Wales wished that.


I understand that there was strong opposition from certain Scottish interests, and that it was mainly because of Scottish opposition that—

Mr. Hector Monro: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Evans: One knows that Cabinet secrets are not revealed—

Mrs. Ewing: The united Front Bench speaks again.

Mr. Evans: In relation to Wales and Scotland, there is complete collusion between the two sides. Their policies towards Wales are very similar.
I return to the question of the Rural Development Board. One sees that only in its early stages of operation is it required to exercise wisdom, patience and forbearance. Evidently, the need will cease after a few years of operation. That is just what the farmers of the area have feared all along.
We shall have a farcical situation if the Government insist on thrusting this engine of their bad policies on an unwilling people. The Tories have made clear several times that when they come to power in a year or two one of their first actions will be to abolish the Board. In those circumstances, what could be sillier than going ahead with the plan?
The Government's penchant for far bigger units, amalgamation, and centralisation is seen not only in things like farms and hospitals but also in local government reorganisation, where they propose—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): The hon. Gentleman is indulging in the grossest exaggeration, but he would be prepared to admit that the existence of the Rural Development Board means that about £500,000 a year will be invested in the area to improve roads and other amenities. Is he against that as well?

Mr. Evans: I do not think that it means that at all. The figure of £500,000 is mentioned, but there is no guarantee that even a few pounds of it will be used. Most of that money can be obtained in other ways from grants which are already available.
I was about to speak about the knocking together of local authorities. It is the Government's plan, as we know from their White Paper, to knock together the Welsh county councils and to abolish the small urban councils which have done splendid work in Wales. They should drop these reactionary proposals just as they have dropped the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.
Another futile proposal which should have been dropped is the Constitutional Commission. When the Government announced it six months ago, the Press was almost unanimous in saying that it was just a time-wasting gimmick. It has been said that a week is a long time in politics, but six months have passed since the Commission was announced, and it has not yet even met. It is too late to play at politics like this.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: rose—

Mr. Evans: I cannot give way. I am already running beyond my time.
It is too late in Wales to play at politics like this. The Welsh people have been infected by freedom beyond hope of recovery. Hundreds of thousands of Welshmen are now hopeless cases dedicated to national freedom. Even long-standing Conservative Unionists of both the Tory and Labour Unionist Parties have lost their immunity from infection. Wales is lost to England, because she is finding herself.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "Labour Unionists", in the light of his denial that he is a national separatist?

Mr. Evans: I had already sat down, but I am glad to be able to say, if the hon. Gentleman did not already know it, that the Labour Party is a Unionist party. It does not believe in a separate Government for Wales. What does it believe in, therefore? It believes in political and constitutional unionism between England and Wales, just as the Tory Party has hitherto believed.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) into the question of rural development


boards, but the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) who made her maiden speech this afternoon made a far better analysis of the problems of Northern Ireland, which did not involve questions of national identity but related to the question of social and economic responsibility, to the fundamental problems and wickedness of capitalism expressed through the establishment of the Unionist Party there, which has nothing to do with nationalist issues, as she made clear.
One of the fundamental issues which has been raised tonight is the achievements of the Government, but some of the fundamental problems which are especially to do with South Wales still need to be posed. I blame no one in South Wales for feeling a little confused by the proliferation of plans and proposals over the last 12 months or so. We have, for example, Severnside City ideas, Llantrisant New Town, the maritime industrial development areas policy for the coastal strip of Cardiff and, within that framework, development areas, special development areas, grey areas and non-development areas.
I am not certain that all these plans and proposals for the development of South Wales are necessarily complementary: in some cases they are differing and conflicting. Someone, somewhere and some time soon has to establish an overall plan for the development of South Wales. What is lacking at the moment is any real strategy of development in South Wales which will give a vision or an idea of what South Wales may be like in 1981 or 2001. Will it, for example, be dominated by the great industrial complex sited on the coast between Newport and Cardiff, as imaginatively described by the South Wales Docks Board and supported by the Ministry of Transport studies of maritime industrial development areas, or will it be the Llantrisant New Town, with its growth to 130,000 people, with all the major industrial development which would accrue?
What is, in all this, the future of Cardiff, the capital city? Professor Buchanan has done studies for Cardiff and for Llantrisant and, in his Cardiff study, he explicitly excluded any form of industrial development in the docks and the coastal strip between Newport and Cardiff. If the South Wales Docks

Board proposals went forward, as Professor Buchanan confessed at a Press conference when he introduced his plan, it would mean a major re-think of his transportation and planning study of Cardiff. Are we to have such a major re-think? Do we support the maritime industrial development area policy of the Ministry of Transport? Is the Welsh Office supporting such proposals, or does it support the idea of Llantrisant New Town and the restriction of the development of the capital city to essentially a commercial and administrative centre? These are the choices and decisions which no one has yet even begun to discuss or conclude upon.
Something which has been given very little attention tonight, although it is the most significant event in the development of South Wales, is the publication of the Llantrisant New Town Report and Professor Buchanan's views on it. To say the least, Professor Buchanan is enigmatic on these major problems. He took as his brief the terms of reference in "Wales: the Way Ahead". But he discovered, like many others, that "Wales: the Way Ahead" can mean all things to all men and all towns.
He assures us that Llantrisant new town will in no way preclude development further west. Apparently, the Land Commission's proposal for almost doubling Bridgend will have no effect on and will not be affected by the new town. I would doubt that.
Then we look at the relationship between the development of Cardiff and Llantrisant. Cardiff will develop, and there will be a population of 130,000 five or six miles away from the major regional centre of the capital city of Cardiff. At one stage in his report on Llantrisant, Professor Buchanan assures us that the growth of Llantrisant new town nearby should add naturally to the demand for Cardiff's services and to the city's strength as a regional centre. That is in paragraph 360. In paragraph 184 he says that at the moment Cardiff as a regional centre provides the major shopping centre for high order durable goods and that it was expected that Llantrisant would attract a good deal of the expenditure on durable goods from surrounding areas and also that a good deal would be lost to other centres, particularly Cardiff. Where do we stand?
Professor Buchanan has proposed, for the year 2,001, 900,000 sq. ft. as a major shopping centre in Llantrisant. Only a year or so ago he proposed a 3 million sq. ft. shopping centre in Cardiff. Does any one believe that there will be sufficient purchasing power in places within a few miles of each other to justify the development of 3,900,000 sq. ft. of shopping space in two major centres of South Wales?
The recent Glamorgan shopping study suggested that if Llantrisant grows to a population of between 130,000 and 140,000 Cardiff's shopping centre will need to be smaller rather than larger, 1,200,000 sq. ft. instead of 3 million sq. ft. When we consider that almost every other town in South Wales is also planning new and in some cases expanded town centre shopping schemes, we may find South Wales in a situation which could have happened in one of the northern regions. If all the planning proposals for shopping development in the North-West had been implemented, there would have been nothing less than one man, one shop in the region.
I have taken the specific example of shopping centres as an illustration of the need to produce an overall development plan for South Wales. We should not under-estimate town centre development, which absorbs an enormous amount of public and private capital.
Where is the future industrial base of South Wales? Do we want a commuter society on the lines of the South-East, successful and prosperous but destroying many of the social values of the South Wales communities? Again, there is absolute confusion and almost impenetrable difficulty in knowing exactly where we stand on these basic issues.
Again, Professor Buchanan in the Llantrisant study quotes, presumably with acceptance, "Wales: the Way Ahead", which says that Cardiff should assume an increasingly important part in the life of economy; its many advantages for manufacturing industries should be exploited; considerable structural changes can be expected because of the rundown of steel. He then points out the anomalies of the development area policy and the problems which would occur with a new town like Llantrisant. I am not sure whether Professor Buchanan thinks that Cardiff

should be within or outside the development areas, and whether Cardiff's industrial needs will be complementary or competing with those of the new town, Llantrisant. What are the advantages of manufacturing industries in Cardiff which could be exploited? If these are not the largest areas of land capable of industrial development adjacent to the docks, what are they? Is the planner to be ignored in his plan for Cardiff that there should be no industrial development along the coastal strip? Should we discount this, as he seems to discount it in his plan for Llantrisant?
Are the Llantrisant new town and the proposals put forward by the South Wales Docks Board only last weekend for a major industrial complex on the coastal strip compatible? Are they complementary or conflicting?
Perhaps I should not be too harsh on Buchanan. His apparent difficulties are inevitable without any clearly defined policy and strategy for South Wales. They expose "Wales: the Way Ahead" for what it it. It is not a strategy or a plan, but a series of round-the-country surveys, expressing and endorsing local plans and aspirations. All of them are commended irrespective of whether they are complementary or conflicting and whether they are all quite different from each other or can all be accommodated in the same overall plan.
My point is not directed at the fact that a marvellous job has not been done. A very difficult job has been done, despite the circumstances. Today we have better housing and a better society in Wales than could possibly have existed if a Tory Government had taken over.
Surely it is time to make a decision. But, without a strategy and without an overall plan for South Wales, how can one judge the competing demands on public investment? In what scheme of things in South Wales can any Secretary of State give approval to a £20 million road scheme in Cardiff which will move commuters a few miles at 30 m.p.h. at peak periods when there are so many large missing links in our present major road network? My right hon. Friend announced today that he had reached one vital decision in respect of communications. The construction of the M4 is to be started by 1971–72. But what effect will it have on other major public


investment programmes? Will he now give £20 million for an urban motorway scheme in Cardiff, or will he decide that it does not come sufficiently high in the priorities of the region? These are the sorts of matters which should be debated and discussed before decisions are taken upon them. In what scheme of things should we underwrite an £80 million development in Cardiff and a £380 million development in Llantrisant nearby? Is Cardiff to be an administrative and commercial capital only? What is its industrial future?
At the moment, we have not got a scheme of anything. We have not got a plan for South Wales which will combine the social values of the communities in the valleys and establish the best ways of developing the economy of South Wales. What we desperately need and what the people of Wales hope to have is some real guide-line as to the way ahead in South Wales.

Mrs. Ewing: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the Welsh people in the valleys looking for a way ahead. Would he agree that the chief requirement is for a net increase in the number of jobs, particularly male jobs? Does he foresee a net increase in the number of male jobs, and can he say something about the net increase that there has been?

Mr. Rowlands: I would have to speak for another half hour to answer that question. However, I see an increase under a Socialist Government, because they are willing to control the economy of the United Kingdom in the interests of the regions, and this is vital. If we loosen our control on the development of the South-East and other similar congested areas, we have no hope. It is the Government's control of the United Kingdom economy which will produce those jobs, and nothing else.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) will understand if I do not follow him, although I agree with his general criticism that the Government have not a picture in mind of the economic basis of the kind of society in Wales that they wish to see in the future.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer with us. He appeared to be

in a very buoyant mood today. He indulged in a bout of self-congratulation, and his only regret appeared to be that he was not in a position to spend more money in Wales and could spend it only on essentials. I was surprised to hear that, because only today, as the Minister knows, I put down a Question which was not reached, but to which I have had the Reply, about the way in which some money is spent in Wales. It had come to my attention that hospital authorities had been instructed, in a great hurry, to erect flagpoles ready for the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary and other dignitaries to hospitals in Wales and that joiners had to work throughout Saturday and Sunday to erect them. The Answer from the Minister is:
My right hon. Friend asked Hospital Authorities throughout Wales to fly Welsh flags on 1st April, where this could be done without undue expense, to mark the devolution of responsibility for the Hospital Service in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales on that day. I am told that about £1,240, including payment for some 166 hours over, time, was in fact spent by these authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): rose—

Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. This is a small sum in itself, but it is annoying to hospital authorities when we are continually told that money cannot be spared to be spent on essential hospital services. It shows a strange sense of priority for a Socialist Government.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The flagpoles were not put up for my visit. I am sure that the House will agree that the occasion of the transfer of executive power for health services to the Secretary of State for Wales deserves significant recognition. The emphasis which was rightly put on it was "without undue expense". Taken over a long period the cost is infinitesimal. The hon. Gentleman, as much as anyone else, has pleaded for greater powers for the Secretary of State. I think that the House will agree that here was an occasion on which we could do something significant to recognise it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will agree that many hon. Members wish to speak and that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Hooson: If that is the best way the Government could think of marking


the occasion, I pity their sense of priority and purpose.
The Secretary of State for Wales, in a great deal of his speech, dwelt on the economic state of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that in 1965, for the first time, the number of jobs available to employees in Wales dropped to below one million, and that it has remained well under that figure since.
Wales is still far too dependent on declining industries, and the Government have not shaped up to the enormity of the task of providing Wales with the right infrastructure for a sound economy in future. Despite the provision of advance factories, there are still fewer jobs in Wales than there were five years ago. No one denies that Wales has been neglected for many years. There is an enormous amount of work to do if we are to provide Wales with a sound economy when the raw materials which existed in the past have disappeared.
It seems to me—and I have said this many times—that the future of Wales will largely depend on the speedy development of a first-class transport system. The Government are spending more money on roads in Wales, but largely on patching up existing roads rather than on providing a new transport structure which Wales so badly needs. We are still denied promotional roads; and there are very few miles of motorway in Wales. As a Liberal, I believe that the greatest economic contribution that any Government could make to Wales at the present time is a first-class transport system.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely the hon. Gentleman must have prepared his speech before the announcement of the extension of the M4 today.

Mr. Hooson: Certainly not. I should not have changed it in one degree. From my experience in Mid-Wales, I should give up every grant for a factory in return for a first-class transport system.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I am prepared to give way, but in view of what Mr. Speaker said about the prolongation of speeches, I do not think that I should.
Farmers have had a difficult year. Few people appreciate how great are the difficulties of small farmers in some of the marginal areas in Wales. One good demonstration farm would be worth more to mid-Wales than any Rural Development Board.
The farmers of Mid-Wales know how to farm and people in Mid-Wales cannot understand why the Government are prepared to spend so much money on the administrative paraphernalia of the Rural Development Board, which is supposed to improve rural services. The Minister of Agriculture intervened and mentioned roads and other services. At the same time the Secretary of State has refused to sanction innumerable sewerage schemes, on the ground that they cannot be afforded. If the one cannot be afforded how is it that the other can be afforded? It is a question I should like dealt with later.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of how much money the Government are spending in new town extension over the next seven years?

Mr. Hooson: They are spending a considerable amount of money on new towns, and they accepted a criticism of mine about their original plans for overspill from Birmingham, to build for 75,000. They are concentrating now on doubling Newtown as I suggested.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I hope that the view of this House is not that a Scottish Member is not permitted to intervene in a Welsh debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady come to her intervention in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech?

Mrs. Ewing: I want to go back to the subject of transport and to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what he thinks about the expenditure of £246 million in writing off the debt of London Transport. Is he aware of the effect that this money could have had if spread over the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hooson: I do not want to be drawn into arguments like that. All I can say is that my great difference with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) on Welsh matters is that


I think that there is a great advantage in Wales having a unified economy with the United Kingdom. Much that needs to be done in Wales and Scotland and the regions of England can be done only if we pool our wealth.
I am extremely concerned about the inequality of treatment of rural Wales with regard to television and radio programmes. In my area of Montgomeryshire reception is still atrocious. Many people still see only one television channel, and often the picture comes, as it were, through the mist. People in urban areas such as Cardiff or London would not stand for this service. Why should we in the rural areas have to tolerate it? The people of mid-Wales have a first-class moral case—I am not saying a legal case—for paying only half the television licence fee, because they certainly receive less than half the value that the majority of people receive from their television and radio service.
Another matter which is of general concern is the great growth of what I call "the administrative industry" in Wales when fewer and fewer people are engaged in productive work. The present Government have added enormously to the tendency. For example, the total administrative staff of the Welsh Hospital Board and its committees in 1948 was 880. By the end of 1968 it had gone up to 2,285 people. This is in administration alone. Those people cost £404,000 in 1949 and they are estimated to cost £2,357,000 in 1968–69. This is one example. Another is the Inland Revenue staff in Wales, which totalled 1,874 at the end of 1948 but which had gone up to 4,488 by the end of 1968.
We have vast increases in the staffs of boards, county councils, the Land Commission, and all that on what is an increasingly precarious economic base. Naturally I accept that in any sophisticated economy there is bound to be a growth in administration. But it has got out of proportion in Wales, in that Parkinson's Law has been working overtime. It is right—and the right hon. Gentleman knows this—that for years there has been talk of an amalgamating of units of local government, and there has been a great deal of manoeuvring for jobs to build up status. In so many administrative spheres status depends on the number of men one has under one

in one's department. It would be far better for Wales if some of this money were spent on the real needs of the people.
To take as an example the hospital services, for every £1 spent on administration there is £1 less to spend on hospitals and medical services. The matter needs looking into because things are getting out of hand.
I interrupted the hon. Member for Carmarthen to deal with the Welsh Water Board. I wish to make my position clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State knows that I am very much in favour of a Welsh Water Resources Board. I do not envisage an economic division between England and Wales. It is essential that the development of Welsh water resources should be partly controlled by the Welsh and that Wales should not just have an advisory committee.
But people are under a great delusion if they think that there is a great deal of money to be made from water. One country can sell to another country water which is piped from a reservoir from the one to the other, but in these days that is an uneconomic process. Water flowing naturally down a river from, say, the Severn, which rises in Montgomeryshire in Wales, down into England, is extracted in England but is controlled by regulating dams in Wales. Anybody who thinks that he can charge for that water, as opposed to extracting a levy from all the water users on the river, wherever they may be situated in Wales or England, is suffering from a delusion. It cannot be so.
I know of no example in international law in which one country charges another country for water which flows naturally down a river from one country into another although there are international treaties under which, for example, the United States provide money for Canada to pay the capital cost of various developments and have made contributions towards hydro-electric schemes and so on. No country, as far as I know, has ever claimed the right to charge another for water which flows naturally from the one country to the other. This is not to say that there is not a first-class case for a Welsh Water Resources Board, But let us have it clear just what we are talking about.
There has been mention of a Commission to be set up on the Constitution. It is a valid criticism of the Government that one expects a Government to lead and to give their views about legislative devolution. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether the Government are to give evidence to the Royal Commission in favour of a domestic Parliament for Wales. May we be told the Secretary of State's view?
The people of Wales are conscious of their identity as a nation and feel that there are many things which should not be subject to the sort of centralised control which exists at present. I am in favour of people in the regions of England, as well as those in Wales, having a great deal more control over their own affairs. The valid comparison economically is not between England and Wales, but between Wales and some of the economically neglected regions of England. Many of the problems in Wales, in Scotland and in the North-East and South-West England are purely economic and are best solved if we in the United Kingdom all work together.
There is at the same time another sphere which partly embraces economic matters and yet is concerned with the social, cultural and educational life of a region—and particularly of a nation—which needs to have much more control over its own affairs. What is the Government's view on this matter and what evidence would they give to a Royal Commission?

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who represents a vastly different area of Wales than I do. I trust, therefore, that he will forgive me if I do not pursue the arguments which he adduced.
I wish to deal with certain topics raised in Cmnd. 1930 "Cymru: Wales 1968", on page 126 of which the paragraph headed "The Transport Act, 1968" reports that the Secretary of State for Wales has power
… to designate passenger transport areas covering all or any parts of Wales.
It will be agreed that we need a properly integrated and efficient system of

public transport in Wales. A month ago I tabled a series of Parliamentary Questions to my right hon. Friend on this issue and he indicated in reply that the matter was still under consideration.
The subject should be treated with urgency because the 1968 Act is an enlightened Measure. We admired the efforts of my right hon. Friend who is now the First Secretary when she pioneered the Measure through Parliament. Indeed, some of us would have been happier had she stayed in the high office which she held at that time because we are not finding some of her present proposals so appetising.
We in Wales should make use of the 1968 Act to get rid of small and inefficient units of public transport, some of which exist in South Wales. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to establish a passenger transport authority for South Wales, an area which is ideally suited for such an arrangement.
On page 135 of Cmnd. 3930 there is an interesting paragraph headed "Iron Ore Terminals". We are pleased that in the autumn of this year a new major iron ore terminal is to be opened at Port Talbot. Next month, in the company of several of my colleagues, I will have the pleasure of visiting this new undertaking, which has been built at a cost to the public of about £17 million. It will take vessels of 100,000 tons and it could cater for vessels of up to 150,000 tons.
I want to know what is to happen to Monmouthshire. In November, 1966, the British Transport Docks Board announced that it was promoting a Bill to seek permission to build a new iron ore terminal at Uskmouth for the reception and discharge of iron ore for the Spencer Works at Llanwern. It was to cost about f14 million. Then came the public ownership of the steel industry. In South Wales the industry was divided between the publicly-owned Richard, Thomas and Baldwin organisation and the Steel Company of Wales, which largely existed in the west of Wales.
Following the public ownership decision, a series of other decisions were taken which were not favourably received in Monmouthshire. For example, we learned that the chairman of the new undertaking had previously been connected with the privately-owned side of


the industry in West Wales, that the Board was to be comprised largely of people from the privately-owned steel industry and that the headquarters of the newly-organised steel industry was to be established at Port Talbot. Again, when it came to questions of major investment we found that the principal amounts were to be invested at Port Talbot.
The final point with which I wish to deal is the question of Uskmouth which we soon found was in jeopardy. In November, 1967, as a result of a letter I had written to the Ministry of Transport, I received a reply from the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, then Minister of State at that Ministry. In his letter he pointed out that Parliamentary approval had been obtained for the Uskmouth project but that the managing director of the British Steel Corporation in Wales, Mr. Cartwright, had now set up a committee to examine all aspects of the importation of iron ore into South Wales; and presumably, he said, any decision on the Uskmouth project must await its outcome. We have been waiting ever since. I feel that this is not good for the work-people concerned. Naturally, a great deal of anxiety has been generated in the area. In the last week or two we have had a major strike at the Spencer Steel Works. I am not suggesting that this strike could be directly related to those anxieties, but nevertheless if morale in an establishment is low there is more likelihood of strikes.
To continue the story, this morning I received a further letter from the Minister of Power in which he indicated to me that the British Steel Corporation is still working on a study of ore imports into South Wales, to which I had referred in my letter of 3rd February; but I understand it hopes to be in a position to put forward proposals in the fairly near future. A decision on these matters is very much overdue. The British Transport Docks Board has put forward very realistic proposals for a scheme to modernise the existing iron ore handling facilities at Newport Docks. It is a system whereby the cranes would unload the iron ore from the ships and put it into large size hoppers prior to it being put into trucks for dispatch to the Spencer works.
I understand that this scheme would cost some £900,000 and take something

like 12 months to complete. The capital for this investment would be written off over a period of seven years. During this period further consideration could be given to major investment policies in regard to the Uskmouth iron ore terminal.
The alternative to this interim modernisation scheme is for millions of tons of iron ore to have to be conveyed over land to the Spencer works. That will mean, in turn, a double handling of the iron ore, which means inefficiency. It will mean that the steel industry will be entirely reliant on rail; and, thirdly, bridges would have to be strengthened which, again, would involve major capital investment. But the seven-year interim scheme which the Docks Board has put forward would give the necessary opportunity for thought on any possible idea of the Uskmouth scheme still going forward. It must be borne in mind that in this field new concepts are coming into being, almost literally, every day. There is a system using what are known as mother ships which can carry in the region of 60 or 70 barges which can be dropped off at any particular port, as required. Secondly, there is the new concept known as floating docks which can be split up and dispatched to places where they are required.
Newport docks are essentially buoyant. In 1968, three-quarters of the imports into those docks consisted of iron ore. Six out of seven tons of the exports leaving them comprised iron and steel and tinplate goods. This is a classic case of putting all the eggs in one basket. Admittedly, 18 months ago, we had a new timber terminal at Newport. We were pleased to welcome the Prime Minister on that occasion because he opened it. But, alongside this terminal, we need a dock access road to connect it with the main motorway. This could be built at the small cost of £500,000. There has been a lot of discussion about this project. It appears that the local authority, the Ministry and the Docks Board are at loggerheads about how the finance for it should be found.
The docks at Newport can be viable only if the steel industry is healthy. Without efficient ore handling in Monmouthshire, the steel industry will be run down.


The efficiency of the industry in Monmouthshire will deteriorate and the number of people employed in it will decrease. No stone should be left unturned to put matters right, for a large and efficient steel industry is vital to the future prosperity of the people of South Wales.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I have appealed for reasonably brief speeches. So far, hon. Members have responded to my appeal.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) made some very interesting suggestions about the steel industry. What he said goes far wider than mere constituency matters because the efficiency of the steel industry is vital to the engineering industry upon which so many constituencies in South Wales depend. The handling of iron ore is an integral part of ensuring that efficiency.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I turn from his remarks, although I should like to return to them later, to the speech of the Secretary of State. I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman. At first I wondered whether he was talking about the same country as that in which we live. Then I had some doubts whether it was the same planet. I ended with some thoughts about the galaxy. It was a wonderful speech. Some of his remarks about Government expenditure made one's hair curl. Despite the addiction of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) to things Swiss, I hope that, in view of today's sobering news from the foreign exchanges of Europe, the gnomes of Switzerland cannot read Welsh debates. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman deserved his cheer. I have never heard in many months such an entertaining, ebullient and amusing form of soap opera.
I should like to ask the House to consider some more realistic concepts and to say a few words, first, about some of the problems which confront us in Wales, secondly, about some of the things which I venture to believe we are doing wrong and, then, about some thoughts on what we might do right. I deal first with the problems. If I illustrate any of them with

examples from either my constituency or West Wales, it is simply because I know the situation there better. However, hon. Members on both sides will be able to draw analogies from their own constituencies.
First, there is the whole question of what work people in Wales will do. The unemployment figures for my constituency are very sombre indeed. I will give the figures for the various labour exchanges in the last year. In Haverford-west the figure has risen from 2·9 per cent. to 4·2 per cent., in Tenby from 4·6 per cent. to 5·4 per cent., in Pembroke Dock from 4·4 per cent. to 5·2 per cent., in Fishguard from 4 per cent. to 7 per cent., and in Milford Haven from 7 per cent. to 10 per cent.
This is while we still have a great deal of temporary construction work on hand on the oil-fired power station and before the rundown in the service establishments comes. These figures, which are twice the average in Wales and considerably more than twice the average of the United Kingdom as a whole, could well be doubled unless action is taken. It is a serious problem. I appreciate that Pembrokeshire may be one of the blackest and most intractable spots, largely as a result of Government action in the closure of service establishments. However, it is not my point to argue the pros and cons of their closure today. That is outside the scope of this debate.
It goes much wider than that throughout Wales. Let us take the basic industries which have been referred to today. Many hundreds of farms will be amalgamated in the next few years. This is inevitable. Many thousands of people will leave the land in Wales in the next few years. The steel industry, to which the hon. Member for Newport referred, is going through major changes. The result will be that many thousands fewer people will be needed in the steelworks.
The biggest problem of all is the coal industry. It is questionable whether in 20 years' time in Wales there will be any coal industry as we know it today. The only coal miners there will be people wearing white collars and pressing buttons. That will be a good thing. The problem remains of what we shall do with the miners or the sons of the miners who will not be employed in this fashion.
At the moment there are 50,000 people employed in Welsh coalmines. Alternative employment will be needed for many of them. There will be 20,000 or 30,000 fewer in the steel industry. Much of that reduction will occur in Wales. There will be several thousand fewer in agriculture. It is a reasonable estimate that over the next 20 years we shall probably need at least 100,000 new jobs in Wales. That is putting it conservatively.
There was the famous controversy about Professor Edward Nevin's job gap—43,000, I think he said it was, on the basis of the Brown National Plan, the great pyramid of rubbish; 59,000, I think he said it was, on the basis of the sort of progress that the right hon. Gentleman with the spy-glass was making while his Government were in office. The problem is that there is a very large job gap.
What are we to do about it? To employ people, capital is required. The average amount of capital required in the less sophisticated manufacturing industries is about £2,000 per man from employers. Including Government infrastructure—roads, services, and so on—it is considerably more than that. In the more sophisticated industries it runs out at more like £20,000 per job from the employers, and the services are required, too. A fair estimate might well be that it would cost about £10,000 per head to provide these jobs, part from the private sector and part from the public sector. A sum of £10,000 per head for 100,000 jobs means that £1,000 million of investment will be required in Wales in the next 10 or 15 years. That is a great deal of money, and it is enough to concern anybody involved in the management of Wales at the moment, because the question is—from where shall we get it? That is the problem that I pose to the House. It is the central problem, but there are peripheral problems, too.
What are we doing wrong which is preventing the attraction of this form of capital? The first thing that we are doing wrong is creating unnecessary uncertainty. This shaking of confidence is something of which very few Governments appreciate the consequence.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Motions relating to Wales and Social Security may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. George Thomas].

WALES

Question again proposed.

Mr. Donnelly: I had almost forgotten what I was saying. Very few Governments appreciate the consequence of undermining confidence, and confidence is essential if one is to attract investment.
The first illustration that I give of the undermining of confidence I take from West Wales. It is the whole future of the railway lines west of Swansea. Some of these lines are grant-aided, but at the moment the grant aid is limited in period. The proposal being canvassed in certain quarters in British Railways, as the Government and hon. Gentlemen know, is that all the railway passenger services west of Swansea will have to be cut off unless the Government are prepared to make a contribution in excess of £300,000 a year. The cutting off of these services would be a monstrous disaster for the constituencies of Carmarthen and Cardigan and for my constituency.
It is all very well to talk about providing air services instead. These are all right for politicians whose fares are paid for them or a few tycoons, but they do not meet the needs of the thousands of people who need the passenger services in areas such as those. If this subsidy is not granted, I warn that the Government will have to pay far more in other forms of subsidy to attract industry to those areas and to meet the problems of unemployment there.
The problem is acute in a number of ways. A few moments ago I spoke about the unemployment figures. Let me give another illustration of the way in which things work, and of thow these areas are being debilitated. In our small way in Pembrokeshire my County Council gives about 1,000 further education grants a year. How many degree jobs can we offer in return? The answer is, perhaps three or four if we look outside the teaching profession, and about 10 or 20 in the teaching profession. In other words, by


our efforts we are subsidising in microcosm the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not begrudge giving opportunities to our young people, but this poses problems which face almost every West Wales constituency in regard to their educational services, and it spotlights sharply the disparity between the kind of education that is being granted to our young people and the opportunities which are being made available for them. I do not want to be insular about this, but the problem remains, and we cannot ignore it.
There is another form of the undermining of confidence. The development of the port of Milford Haven has peen an achievement of considerable magnitude in the 10 years during which it has developed from being a rural backwater to being the fourth largest port in the United Kingdom. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it comes just after your constituency in terms of net registered tonnage of cargoes handled. But what is happening about this now? A new problem has arisen. There is the Government's proposal to nationalise the ports. I do not mind who owns the port of Milford Haven. It is a publicly-owned body now answerable to the Minister of Transport, but the point is that it has control over its own dues.
We have every disadvantage there in terms of distance from markets, and in terms of difficulties of transport. The one real advantage which we have is cheap deep water. The economic margins upon which this port operates are very narrow indeed. In terms of competitiveness between us and Rotterdam, or the proposed port at Cherbourg, the margin is about a halfpenny a barrel of oil handled, or 3½d. a ton. It is as fine as that. If there is any suggestion of an increase in dues, that port can cease to be economic in comparison with its European competitors.
It is significant that the Esso Petroleum Company started two oil refineries of similar character simultaneously in 1958, one at Milford Haven and one at Rotterdam. The Milford Haven refinery has remained static while the Rotterdam refinery has almost trebled. There have been ports with oil refineries in the past where a fractional change in harbour dues has rapidly affected the prospects, and the ports have been closed. Two examples are

in the United States—at Boston and Baltimore. The oil refineries there were shut down for that reason.
We have a proposal for nationalisation. Ministers can give assurances that there will be no cross-subsidisation, but they are temporary Ministers. The question is whether there will be some future Minister who makes this sort of change possible or whether the port is to be given an autonomous position within the national framework. We are not arguing about who owns the port—it is a public body already—but I quote it as another illustration of jeopardising the attraction of investment.
There is a third aspect. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of what is being achieved in England in comparison with the greater achievements in Wales. I do not know about the statistics which he offered. I should like to study them more closely than I suspect he has studied them. But I point to one development which is the sort of thing that should not be happening.
The area of greatest economic activity in the United Kingdom is probably that around the North of London approximately to Bletchley and Buckingham. Yet the Government propose a new town there called Milton Keynes. The cost is estimated to be about £400 million. Every time £400 million of State effort is spent in that kind of area we in Wales have to spend about twice as much. That makes the problem far more serious. The Government's actions in one case may be laudable but in the other they are completely self-defeating. That £400 million should be spent in Wales, and it must be spent there unless we are prepared to spend later £800 million to make up for the fact that the £400 million is being spent in the London area.
What should be done? If we are to attract £1,000 million of capital investment to Wales in the next 10 or 15 years, we have to create conditions in which people can get a return on their money, and that means that the Welsh economy is tied inextricably to national prosperity and to the national tax structure. It is not my purpose to go into it in detail at this hour but the ancient incentives to work and invest have not changed all that much over the centuries. We shall not get that kind of investment


in Wales unless those incentives are restored—and one of the most important incentives to investment is to make profits possible. We all know the sequence of industrial production—research, production, sales and then profits. Profits are merely tomorrow's surplus after yesterday's expenditure.
Any growth society in any country under any system must have profits. We have to make Wales a profit-conscious country and the Welsh people a profit-conscious people. If anyone doubts the validity to the Socialist doctrine of this proposition, I suggest that he sits at the feet of the Socialist Prime Minister of Singapore, who is in London.

Mr. Anderson: How does the hon. Gentleman square his call to make Wales a profit-conscious country with his demand, as a constituency interest, for a massive subsidy for the railway line from Swansea to West Wales?

Mr. Donnelly: I shall come to that, but allow me first to finish the point about the Prime Minister of Singapore. The Prime Minister of Singapore believes in having a 25 per cent. return on capital invested in Singapore and making this known to anyone who cares to invest in his small city State. That is the way to attract big developments to an area. I do not say that we should go as far as that in Wales, but we have to be very clear as to the need for having these incentives to attract investment.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) asked if we are to be a profit-conscious country, why I proposed a subsidy for that railway line. The reason is that the port of Milford Haven is the finest port in the British Isles and a national asset.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches and many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Donnelly: I was drawing to my conclusion. There is another aspect of the sort of thing we should be doing. That is simplifying our government. We have too much government; it is too centralised and too complicated. If we are to get incentives to develop, we have to simplify the whole structure of government in Wales and to bring it much

nearer to the people so that they understand why decisions have to be made. This means radical changes in the whole governmental structure. I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Carmarthen because, like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and most other hon. Members, I think that it would be an absolute disaster for Wales and the Welsh people if we were to reduce to a chicken-run economy.
On the other hand, we need to simplify things. We need to take another look at the Government's proposals for local government reform. No one doubts the need for reform, but certain problems are posed. I read in the Press that the hon. Lady the Minister of State had a brush with the Lieutenant of Merionethshire the other day. I do not want to get involved in the details about that, but people in West Wales counties will be asked under these proposals to travel in some cases 100 miles in a day to attend a single meeting. This means that ordinary working people will not be eligible for candidatures for county councils in certain areas. Whatever that may be, it is not democracy. If we are to have effective democracy we have to bring local government into a much more local form.
I say to the Secretary of State that I should consider it most unwise to press ahead in defiance of obvious deeply-felt views of some West Wales counties. It would be extremely unwise to press ahead in advance of the Maud Royal Commission. On page 10 of the Green Paper we read that the Secretary of State will be available for new representations following the Maud Royal Commission. If it comes out with any very different recommendations our proposals for West Wales will look antediluvian.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: We hear the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) so infrequently that I was wondering whether it might be my duty to congratulate him on making a maiden speech. In any case I would not proceed with the other part of the formula by saying that we look forward to hearing him again. All of us on this side of the House are glad to see him now sitting in his proper place with hon. Members opposite, although there is not any


noticeable enthusiasm being shown by hon. Members opposite.
The question which has dominated the debate since the Secretary of State spoke has rightly been the general economic development of Wales. There is a balance which has to be struck between the claims of my right hon. Friend and some of the other more general factors which affect Wales as they affect the rest of the country. It is perfectly true that the Government can well claim that their measures of special assistance for Wales have been substantial, and that without them the situation would have been catastrophic. But that does not alter the fact that the series of deflations which the Government have carried out in the economy as a whole is bound to have had its effect on Wales generally, as it has on the rest of the country, particularly on the rate of unemployment, which none of us regards as something that can be accepted at the present level. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not dissent from that.

Mr. George Thomas: I said so.

Mr. Foot: I understand that, but I believe it is essential, in order to have the full advantage of the discriminations which Wales has had as a development area and in the special areas within the development area, that those protections and discrimination should be maintained throughout the next period of boom. It development area advantages are to be removed or diminished at a time when the economy is expanding at the full pace that we all hone and expect in the next few years, we would forfeit some of the advantages from it.
Therefore, although I do not wish to appear parochial in any references to the Hunt Committee and its possible effects, I think that those who come from places in Wales which have the heaviest unemployment have every right to insist that those discriminations should not be removed at the very time when they could be most advantageous. I do not accept the gloom and doom of the hon. Member for Pembroke. Compared with him, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) is a positive ray of sunshine. I do not accept any of the prophecies of doom; we have heard them before. But it is correct—indeed, it is a

platitude, though the hon. Gentleman pronounces it as if he has just discovered something original—that we must have heavy investment in the future. However, I do not see why we should not therefore pay tribute to the heavy investment we have had during the past few years.
The actions the Government have taken in their regional policy deserve every commendation. What I ask them to do—and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be the first to try to secure this—is that the protections in the development areas shall be sustained over the years ahead, and that their strength, force and effectiveness shall not be diminished.
The second topic that I would like to touch on has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) and some other hon. Members. It is the whole question of the development of new towns and the planning of South Wales and Wales as a whole. This is more and more the subject which is forcing itself to the very forefront of our considerations.
Those of us who come from valley towns and speak for heads of the valley constituencies are, of course, advancing a constituency interest, and are not pretending to do anything other than that. But we also have the right to claim that the whole question of looking at the South Wales development in a proper light reinforces our general claim. If the Secretary of State examines some of the later findings now being produced on the whole concept of new towns and comprehensive development, he will find that many of the most up-to-date experts are now turning more and more against the idea of comprehensive developments and new towns as opposed to the idea of developing the older areas and introducing and intertwining the fresh developments into the older areas.
The valley towns are places where this can be done on a scale which has not yet been reached or appreciated. It would be an absurdity if hundreds of millions of pounds were spent in trying to build new Stevenages or new Hemel Hempsteads in Wales, when what we need to do is to ensure that we preserve, enhance and embellish the communities that we already have in Wales.
Economically that is a much better proposition, certainly culturally it is a


much better proposition, and on grounds of transport and communications, and all of these other matters which are being studied by regional planners, it is to be seen that they are coming down on that side of the fence. I plead with my right hon. Friend not to proceed with plans for a comprehensive development such as the Severnside scheme—although I know that there are many who advocate it on this side of the House—not to proceed with that form of development or the new town development, until they have properly studied the whole of the new possibilities, the new perspectives and new ideas that are being advanced about the proper form of regional development.
It is most horrifying to have to agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke, but I agree with him in that I believe we are being pushed or are drifting towards an extremely difficult position over local government. When the Secretary of State produced his White Paper some of us engaged in arguments in our constituencies, or in districts adjoining ours, arguing in favour of many of the proposals and securing agreement for them, sometimes against considerable difficulties. Having once secured the agreement it takes no imagination to understand the frustration when nothing happens, when there is the decision but when people have to wait for years afterwards.
That is what is happening in many parts of Wales. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not want to see the changes anyway, and I can appreciate that. In most places where changes have been advocated and agreement has been sought, it has been extremely frustrating when nothing has happened. This has been the case in my own constituency, and in neighbouring constituencies, for instance in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Clifford Williams). There is a very strong feeling that they would like to proceed with the reforms as speedily as possible. That is a very healthy attitude, it is not the attitude of people who do not want change. I may be guessing, but I believe it to be a fact that one of the reasons for the delay in proceeding with these proposals is that we are now awaiting suggestions or propositions about what is to happen about the reform of local government in England.
In some respects that is unavoidable, but it might have been avoided before if we had been able to get the momentum, if we had got plans into operation before the English proposals came forward. We are not in that situation now, and we have to face the question of local government again. I know that everyone has different ideas about this, and that it is easy to make suggestions which merely cause confusion. We cannot proceed on the basis of Wales merely holding back and waiting for a statement about England without any information as to what our policy is to me. I say this with the greatest diffidence, because I know that many of my hon. Friends have a greater familiarity than I with these subjects, but the more I look at the subject the more I believe that the alterations in our proposals for Wales will have to be radical.
If we have a situation in which elected regional governments are proposed for England, it will be quite impossible to avoid a proposal for an elected council for Wales. It is inconceivable that such a development would be possible without a similar development in Wales. I used to take a somewhat different view, but the more I have listened to the arguments the more I have been persuaded that we must now make up our minds to accept the idea of an elected council for Wales, to accept it openly, fully and legally, because that is the only way to do a big thing, if we are to do it at all. If we accept that, it has repercussions on the rest of the local government plan. I am not saying that the whole proposals previously put forward should be torn up. That would be a great waste of effort and a great pity. But, if there is to be an elected council for Wales, the rôle of the county councils will be diminished.

Mr. Probert: Why not?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) asks "why not?" and I entirely agree with him, because it can start from the other end. For district councils to be told that there will be larger and larger district councils with fewer and fewer powers is an absurdity. The only solution of the problem that makes sense is to agree to the elected council, to do so bravely and boldly and agree to have the district councils with full powers.


That means a radical alteration of the whole concept of the county councils and that they would have to be abandoned.
Local government is of paramount importance. Nobody doubts that the interim position inhibits, among other things, industrial development. I hope that the Secretary of State, with his colleagues, and no doubt with all the members of the Welsh Parliamentary Party and hon. Members on this side of the House, when the proposals for England are published and are available to the Government, will reconsider the matter in this light, and see how speedliy he is able to present to us and to Wales a new plan—not a plan that tears up everyhting that has been done in the past, but one which accepts the idea that there will have to be radical alterations. That

is not a criticism either of him or of his predecessors, some of whom may have foreseen these developments better than we have done. I am not claiming foresight, but I am urging my hon. Friends to look at the matter in this light.
There are several other problems which we should all like to discuss and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare has said, that is one problem about Welsh debates, but, finally, I would mention the problem of sheep. I am making no political reference. If my right hon. Friend will accept some of the representations that have been made about this, introduced the legislation which we have asked for and solve the sheep problem, then we will give him an investiture all of his own at Caernarvon, much better than the one which is forthcoming.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that he was horrified by the thought that he might have to agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), but he and I have in recent weeks occasionally been able to agree on certain other matters. I agree with some of the things he has said, and I entirely agree with him about new towns. I am certain that it is better to redevelop, enlarge and build on the existing town structure and to go right outside it. I have slightly different ideas about local government, which I shall come to in a moment.
I do not think the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) is still with us—what a bore he is!

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Carmarthen is not with us, but so are a great many other hon. Members not with us. Is it in order to be selective?

Mr. Speaker: I am not seized of the hon. Lady's point of order. Perhaps she will repeat it.

Mrs. Ewing: I am asking whether it is in order in a derogatory way to be selective in suggesting who is and who is not in the Chamber. If this is the manner of the House, it is not fitting to the dignity of the House that this procedure should be followed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady by now should have learnt that this is a House where criticism is made and criticism is taken.

Mr. Birch: I was under the impression that it was in order to refer to somebody who had spoken in a debate, and I was just saying what a bore the hon. Member for Carmarthen was. He suggests everything that would be utterly ruinous to the economy of Wales and then says that we should get it all back by selling water to the English. One can do well out of beer and whisky and many people have, but water! As many hon. Members have pointed out, many rivers are shared and the atomic desalination of water has reached a point where it is not likely that one would be able to screw much money for water out of anybody, so that is a non-runner.
The Secretary of State took credit for some road developments and I am delighted to have them, particularly in North Wales and especially that which most affects my constituency, the St. Asaph bypass, which is the continuation of a road constructed many years before the war. The very first letter I received when I became the Member for Flint-shire in 1945, then the whole of Flint-shire, was from someone asking whether I thought that his house would be knocked down in the near future in order to make way for the St. Asaph bypass. I wrote to the then Socialist Minister of Transport to ask whether this would happen and he replied that he did not think that it was imminent. I still have the letter and I am thinking of having it framed as a really true answer from a Labour Minister.
I now turn to the subject of local government, which both the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Pembroke have mentioned. This issue has been going on for an appallingly long time. Some months ago, we had an all-day debate on it in the Welsh Grand Committee when there was a fairly general feeling that we ought to get on with it without bothering too much about the English Royal Commission. All development is held up, because no one knows where he is. Personally, I supported the two-county solution for North Wales, which is where the major changes would be effected. I think that the Government reached the right conclusion in that respect, but we cannot get on in North Wales because we do not know where we are.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale asked what was to happen to the district councils. I do not know the experience of other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies, but I find that while there is no great objection to the amalgamation of district councils, there is objection to the deprivation of powers. They all say that as they are now much bigger organisations, they ought to have much bigger responsibilities, but they are to have powers which are not much more than those of a parish council.
I cannot help feeling that that situation is wrong. The larger the county unit is, the more responsibility should be delegated to district councils, Perhaps that


over-states the case, but certainly powers should not be taken from the district councils in respect of things which vitally affect the lives and interests of the people who live in the districts. We hear much about participation; this is saying, "We govern, you participate". That is not something likely to attract people. I beg the Secretary of State to do two things—to carry through his major alterations of county council boundaries and not to deprive amalgamated district councils of all their powers, all their authority, all their rights.
I turn now to the effect of the Budget on Wales, a subject which has hardly been mentioned. The major thing in many parts of Wales is the increase in Selective Employment Tax, particularly in the grey areas waiting for Hunt. Where are the beds in the hotels in Wales? They are mostly in parts of Wales which are not part of the Welsh development area. Not only do we have this savage increase in S.E.T., but we have the tax on sheets, blankets, curtains, fabrics and everything else.

Mr. Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the North Wales hoteliers will get a mammoth, buckshee, tax-free Government help because of the Investiture, which will more than offset any budgetary imposition they have to face?

Mr. Birch: I have been told that I have to stay in Caernarvon for the Investiture. I had hoped to come from my home in North Wales. But we will not have an Investiture every year.
I understand that this tax is intended by the Government as a great social measure that is likely to continue. With abject respect, the hon. Gentleman's point is not a powerful one. It affects a great part of the hotel industry in South Wales. I understand that the effect of the tax on the hotel industry will be to take away more than any amount the industry might get through the Development of Tourism Bill which is having trouble going through the House. Is it a sensible way to proceed to give something with one hand and to take rather more away with the other? That is what maddens people about the sort of things that are going on now.
Agriculture has not been discussed at great length. Farmers do not pay S.E.T. for agricultural employees, but they have to give a tax-free loan to the Government. I understand that the N.F.U. has worked out that it amounts to about £125 per man. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation is, I believe, about to fail in floating a loan, even though it is a 9½ per cent. loan at 99. We must consider the desperate level of interest rate and what this means to farmers, especially as so many are going over to beef and will have to borrow more money if they have to lend money to the Government as well. One of the dottiest things about S.E.T. which has struck me is the administratively clumsy way in which people have to lend this money to the Government.
I had many oratorical jewels prepared for the debate, but we were held up by the forces of unreason. Therefore, I will not detain the House longer.
We all agree that it is of the greatest importance to increase agricultural production, as the Minister rightly said, before he was blown off course. But I cannot believe that we have got what we need unless we have the import levy system, because the only other way of increasing agricultural production is by increasing Government expenditure, and we will not get it out of the Treasury. It can be done the other way. That is the way that we ought to do it in the best interests of Wales.
That is all I have to say. I trust that many other hon. Members will enjoy the debate.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: One cannot but be impressed with the Report on Welsh affairs, Cmnd. 3930, which we are discussing. It covers a wide range of activity, including the industrial, social and cultural life of our community. It surpasses anything that we have had before and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Office on what they have achieved in the last year.
Almost daily we hear of a new factory or industry being established in the Principality. I agree that this trend is not yet coping with the problems arising from pit closures, but Wales is being transformed in a remarkable way, particularly when one realises that the


Welsh Office has been in operation for only three years. Listening to hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would imagine that the Welsh Office had been in existence for 10 or 15 years. It has achieved a great deal in so short a time. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine that it could have provided jobs for everybody in three years?
I admit that problems remain and that there is no room for complacency. However, many of these problems result from the changing pattern of industry, a pattern which, apart from certain areas of the North-East and Scotland, has not been experienced elsewhere. These problems arise from growth and advancement and not from stagnation and decay.
Why has so much of this discussion been about roads? My right hon. Friend has reported great achievements in road improvements in Wales. They have not been sufficient, simply because of the rapid rate at which new factories are being established in the Principality. Industrialists are demanding better road communications. As our roads are improved, more factories are established and, in turn, still better roads are needed. For example, in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend knows well, South Wales Switchgear and Johnson and Johnson have established factories. This is why the roads in the valleys are becoming congested, particularly in the development areas.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his influence to obtain more money from the Government for the improvement of road communications. Many industrialists with whom I have spoken have told me that factory sites in the Principality are good, that the manpower is available but that they begin to have misgivings when they examine the roads.
The same story applies to housing. My right hon. Friend has shown that more houses than ever before have been built as a result of the establishment of the Welsh Office and its activities. Some of the firms which are establishing themselves in the Principality are bringing in staff from London and Birmingham, and they want housing in the urban areas of South Wales. Some key workers wish to buy their own homes. Others have made representations to local authorities

for housing to be provided. We are now told that local authorities are to be seriously restricted in their quotas of loans in special development areas. I ask my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to assist urban authorities where the demand for housing for key workers so very great as a result of the establishment of industry in South Wales.
Our troubles in South Wales and the unemployment figures which hon. Members opposite refer to so often are due largely to pit closures. Although the Minister of Power has said that the rate of closures is to be slowed, they are still taking place, and in areas where pits have already been closed. Penallta is likely to go. This pit is only a few miles from Nine Mile Point, Wyllie and Risca, which have already been closed. This is causing much hardship.
This is one of the problems which the Welsh Council is tackling. I understand that the Council seeks to determine the social consequences of pit closures and makes representations to the Minister of Power. Where the social consequences are very great, the Council will try to persuade the Minister to defer the closure. Although the Council engages in these deliberations, we, who are elected by the people, know nothing about it. Nothing is said. I am surprised that this excellent Report from the Welsh Office contains only one and a half pages concerning the Welsh Council. This disturbs me. It makes me wonder about other such Councils. Who are they responsible to? I take it that they are responsible to some Minister, but they do not seem to be accountable to Parliament. What is the Welsh Council doing? What does it recommend to the Minister of Power about pit closures? I see that it has set up an Industry and Communications Panel which is composed of people with vast experience of industry. We do not know what recommendations it is making to the Minister.
A serious position is arising in the South Wales pits. The Coal Board has ordered that stocks of coal must be cleared. The coal is being loaded on to wagons, but the wagons are not being moved from the pits. The fresh coal coming up from the pits cannot be put into wagons. It has to be put into lorries which have to be hired locally at


much expense. The wagons have been loaded from stock. The coal must be re-dumped at a high cost to the Board. I was told by the Ministry of Transport that this was a matter for British Railways. Who will answer our questions on this subject?
I understood that the Minister of Transport was responsible for British Railways, but we cannot get an answer on this matter. This is increasing the cost of producing coal at a time when miners in South Wales are increasing their productive capacity. It is disappointing to colliery managers, to colliery agencies, and to all those engaged in the mining industry to see these loaded wagons standing there and the coal being dumped into lorries. This is costing the N.C.B. a considerable amount of money, and I should like to know just how much this adds to the cost of producing coal. We are told that coal must be competitive in price. What is happening is not the fault of the miners, but of British Railways, and we can get no answer from any source, either inside the House or outside it. I have spoken to the Minister of Transport about this, and I think that she should give us an answer.
The time has come to establish in Monmouthshire the training centre that we were promised a long time ago. There are many redundant miners in Wales, and the need for this centre has become paramount. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate she will give some information about what progress has been made with this training centre.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken over the Health Service in Wales. I am sure that he will bring a fresh outlook to bear on our health services, and I look forward to some improvement in them. The hospital waiting lists in Wales are tragically long. I know that the Chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board shares my view. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to do something to reduce the waiting lists. Hundreds of people in Monmouthshire are waiting to go into the Royal Gwent Hospital. They are suffering from all sorts of complaints, and the position is becoming serious.
There is a need to establish health centres in Monmouthshire. Doctors in

certain parts of Wales have been reluctant to agree to the setting up of these centres, but doctors in Monmouthshire agree that they should be established, and we shall be very grateful if my right hon. Friend can speed up the activities of the local authorities in getting these centres set up.
The figures show that at 1st April of this year 41,313 disabled people were unemployed in Wales, and it is admitted that there has been very little change in the situation from the previous year. Many of these men were employed in the mining industry. Many of them are suffering from pneumoconiosis. They need not only training, but a suitable job after they have been trained.
I am critical of one aspect of the S.E.T. It should not be Government policy to impose this tax on disabled people in the service industries. Many disabled men could seek employment in these industries, but employers will not be encouraged to employ them if by so doing they have to pay this extra tax. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his influence to help these disabled people in the service industries. Those who employ these men should not have to pay this tax. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred to the need to get on with local government reorganisation. In the main, the local authorities are anxious that this should be proceeded with. They have seen and studied the reports. There are differences of opinion, but they are asking continually when the Government intend to bring forward the necessary legislation, which itself will take some time in Parliament. We hope that the Government will be able to announce in the near future what progress they are making with local government reorganisation. Discussions have been going on a long time and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell us that it will not be much longer before local government is reorganised.
I must compliment the Welsh Office on what it has achieved. I have been critical of certain aspects but, by and large, it has achieved a great deal in the last 12 months. It is bringing new life to the valleys of South Wales. I am


sure that, in the next few years, the valleys will be quite different from what they were when so dependent on the coal, tin plate and steel industries. Great changes are taking place because of the efforts of the Welsh Office and I urge my right hon. Friend and all others in the Department to proceed with the task as quickly as possible.
But, of course, so much depends on the general economy. We need more and more economic expansion. Wales cannot be left outside the general position of the United Kingdom. Given this expansion, I am sure that the Welsh Office will grasp the opportunity and bring more and more life and industry to South Wales which we so desire.

10.57 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene in the debate and I shall confine myself at this late hour to two subjects, both of which have been referred to by many hon. Members. The first is the Buchanan Plan for urban development and prospects in Llantrisant and the other is the motorway extension to Bridgend. I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State about the extension and I hope that his predictions as to timing will prove correct.
I should declare my interests. The line of the motorway extension affects land owned by me, and the Buchanan Report suggests that everything I own in Glamorgan—house and land—should be taken into the new town. I do not, however, think that I am affected by that in what I am going to say because I do not yet fully understand the implications of the Report. I should also say that for 10 years or more I have been one of the freemen's elected representatives on the Town Trust of Liantrisant and I am proud of my association with the old town. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, because I think he would recognise that I am wearing a Black Army tie.
These two subjects are closely interrelated because those who have studied the Buchanan proposals will have been struck by the fact that the line of the motorway is to go through the middle of the proposed new town if it is built in the area recommended. It is, therefore, crucial to the future of urban growth

in Llantrisant that the line of the motorway and, in particular, the siting of the junction with the Llantrisant by-pass which is already under construction—should be settled in a way which takes account of what may be coming in perhaps a few years' time in the way of urban and industrial development.
I know that everybody associated with Llantrisant is proud of its recent rapid growth and is delighted that it will grow still further. We were a borough in 1346. Because of the decline in population, we had our borough status taken away in 1883. I hope that we can now look forward to a real prospect of great urban and industrial development in Llantrisant. Certainly, I want to associate myself with the idea of Llantrisant as a growth point. I consider, however, that the motorway should be the southern boundary of the town. In this respect, I feel distinctly uneasy about the recommendations in the Buchanan Report.
There appears to be no reason whatever why the line of the motorway should not be moved considerably to the south of the proposed line, which was prospected, I believe, during the war. There is no serious objection at this time to the line of the motorway being changed so as to bring in 3,000, perhaps 5,000, acres of land suitable for urban development—indeed, that has been recommended as such by Buchanan. If that were done, it would, I believe, be possible for the entire Liantrisant development to be kept completely separate from the Vale of Glamorgan by the motorway. After the plan has been in existence for so many years, however, there is a natural reluctance by those engaged in the construction of the motorway to make any changes at this stage. The Welsh Office has an opportunity which it ought not to neglect to come in now, not to delay, but to integrate the plans for the motorway and for the new town, and to do it promptly.
I read with dismay in the Report for 1968, under the heading "New Towns" on page 5, that
The Secretary of State recognised, however, that because of issues yet to be resolved, such as those depending on the Severnside and Liantrisant studies, it would be inopportune to make firm and long-term proposals.
With respect, I disagree with that conclusion. This is precisely the time when we want firm, long-term proposals from the Secretary of State.
I pay particular tribute to the staff of the Welsh Office, the Glamorgan County Council, Llantrisant Rural District Council and of Professor Buchanan, who have advised me from time to time informally about the way that the Llantrisant plans were proceeding. I have grave doubts, however, about the Buchanan Report as published. These issues must be resolved before we finalise the route of the South Wales motorway.
I do not want to dilate at length on the objections which can be raised, and which, indeed, have been raised, by a number of people besides myself to the conclusions of the Report. Briefly, however, they are these. The population target of 145,000 people by the end of the century is significantly too high and is not only unrealistic, but is likely to prove damaging, as other hon. Members have said, to urban districts round about. It is, I think, a mistake that the area specified for the new town excludes Beddau and Tonyrefail in the north; that it straddles the motorway and, to the south, reaches down almost to the villages of Ystradowen, Pendoylan and St. Brides. It has also been pointed out in the Report that, as planned, Llantrisant new town will reach to within two miles of Cardiff. This seems to me to be a serious mistake.
If £400 million is to be spent on Llantrisant alone, it is vital to consider the future of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire as a whole in studying this recommendation. The future of Llantrisant new town should not be decided by the road-builders, the minor local authorities or the county councils, nor even by the consultants. The responsibility rests squarely on the Welsh Office and, in particular, on the Secretary of State. I hope that in considering the Buchanan Report he is going to consider the status and the nature of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire as a residential, cultural, industrial and commercial unit in the 21st century. Anything less would be falling below the needs of South Wales. He should consider the whole area from Barry to Llanwern as a single urban area, taking in Cardiff and Newport, and also Caerphilly, Llantrisant and Cwmbran.
This presents him with a very great challenge, but nevertheless I hope that he will tackle it. He has got to think of the

pull of Bristol; about the need in South Wales for a modern seaport as modern as Rotterdam and ultimately able to handle—I hope—the same sort of traffic; about the development in South Wales of an airport capable of handling modern aircraft such as the Concorde; he has got to think also of a cultural centre able to make a worthy Celtic capital.
I believe that if we can plan for a self-sufficient nucleus of population in the Cardiff area, highly organised and integrated, we shall be able to look outwards at the world. We shall not simply become a disintegrated group of scattered urban communities without quality or ambition.
I know that the coming of the motorway will bring into South Wales undreamed of volumes of traffic, and that the fashion of the moment when contemplating rapid increases in traffic volume is to go for dispersal; but I ask the Secretary of State not to capitulate to this fashion because I think it will be disastrous for South Wales if he does so. In particular, I hope he will reject the policy of keeping Cardiff small. I am sorry the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) is not here, because he spoke extremely eloquently on this point.
In brief, the Secretary of State has an opportunity here to prove himself, to prove his capacity for a big vision of the future of South Wales, and to prove his personal force and his capacity for detailed planning. I trust that he will rise to it, that he has the vision and has it clearly, and I wish him every possible success in carrying it through.

11.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I think it might be for the general convenience of the House if I intervened at this point, although some hon. Members may wish to continue the debate later. It was generally agreed that I should rise at this time. We have had an extremely interesting debate, but this is customary on these days when we consider the state of the Principality.
A great many different points have been raised, and I think I can only say to hon. Members in all parts of the House that we will endeavour to deal with them by correspondence. Although


they are of great interest and importance to the constituencies of hon. Members, I do not think we can be expected to answer every one of them on this occasion.
At the opening of this debate, I had very much in mind the speech we heard earlier on from the new hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). It struck me most forcibly that the quality of that speech, apart from the natural eloquence of the speaker, indicated the way in which people speak when they have really acute grievances to complain about, and that the tone of the speech which we had, for example, from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) indicates all too clearly that the grievances about which he is complaining are of a very different category, and on a very different plane, from those grievances which afflict people in Northern Ireland.
We have had a number of themes going through the debate, and I will try to touch upon the principal ones. My right hon. Friend opened his remarks by drawing to the attention of the House the increased responsibilities which have now come to the Welsh Office. I am sure we all welcome the extended scope of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and I am personally particularly concerned with those which refer to the health and welfare services. I have therefore been very much interested in the comments made during the debate, more particularly on the hospital services.
I ask hon. Members to reflect on the fact that we are taking over these very important responsibilities at a time when there are some extremely complex problems to be resolved. There are the problems at local level more particularly consequent upon the general policy of concentrating hospital services in the future, rather more than in the past, on district or base hospitals, with obviously very difficult considerations for the existing hospitals—what might be called the peripheral or intermediate hospitals—which will be affected by the growth of these new facilities. We had one particular instance drawn once more to our attention—not that we are exactly unfamiliar with it—that of the casualty unit at Llwynypia. We have to look at the whole conspectus of hospital provision in Wales.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board who is undertaking most devoted work in the reorganisation of the hospital service and is taking immense pains in meeting local authorities, organisations and staff in parts of the Principality which are affected by reorganisation. I am sure he will do so in other places as reorganisation may become necessary there.
It is very important that hon. Members who have constituencies in which hospital reorganisation may come about should do their very best to meet those concerned with the reorganisation, and learn as much as they can of the reasons for the reorganisation so that they can be in a better position to advise those who are naturally emotionally involved in this subject. I know, for example, that in North Monmouthshire at present there is acute feeling on this matter. I know this particularly because I have personal connections with that part of the world. All I am saying is that we must try to strike a balance between the scientific needs of modern medicine and the important social needs of the communities concerned. I assure hon. Members that we in the Welsh Office will be very glad to discuss with them any problems that may arise on hospital reorganisation.
I should also like to emphasise the tremendous problems which we have inherited owing to the almost complete lack of new hospital building over so many years in the Principality under the Conservative Administration. We are now having to make up in the hospital programme for 10 years of neglect. It was only in the last few years of their administration that hospital building in Wales reached any substantial proportions. It is partly because of this backlog that we are facing acute problems, not least, as we are all well aware, in the hospitals for the mentally sick and mentally subnormal.
I should like by way of encouragement to point out that since the inception of the Health Service in 1949—just 20 years ago—the number of patients dealt with in hospitals in Wales has risen from 150,000 to 288,000 last year. In spite of all the extra pressures and the great difficulties about waiting lists in certain places, for example, in the Royal Gwent,


waiting lists have been reduced by 25 per cent. and the number of out-patients seen has been increased by more than half although the number of accident cases has almost doubled. The amount of work done in Welsh hospitals has increased enormously and the effective use of hospital beds has also almost doubled. This we should remember and pay tribute to hospital staffs even at times when we may be faced with difficult local problems.
I should very much like to mention other questions which arise in the social services but time prevents this. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was particularly concerned about housing starts. He cast some doubt on progress made there, but we have had an absolute record of house building in the last three years. Now the problem is beginning to change and it is the quality of housing in Wales which causes much more concern than actual numbers of houses built. We have far too large a proportion of sub-standard houses. Largely to deal with that problem, the Government introduced the Bill which is now going through the House. Those of us who have been in this House for a long time can speak from personal experience of far fewer people coming to our "surgeries" with housing problems than we had even two or three years ago.
We have heard a great deal tonight about new towns. Only in the last few weeks my right hon. Friend received the Buchanan Report. This will need most careful study before any decisions are reached on it. There will have to be consultations with all the local authorities and other interests concerned. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will wish to take due time before reaching any firm conclusions.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will the hon. Lady allow me—

Mrs. White: I think not. The hon. Member had ample time to develop his argument. He has a close local interest, but there will be other occasions when he can discuss it.
As "Wales, the Way Ahead" made abundantly clear, we are deeply concerned with the quality of life in the valleys of South Wales. We have had some very eloquent speeches about this.
I assure my hon. Friends that we in the Welsh Office are deeply sympathetic to their plea for sustaining the quality of life of the valleys. That does not mean that we cannot have some industrial and other development elsewhere—of course we must—but all of us with personal knowledge of the valleys recognise the richness of community life there. I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and I are as dedicated to the future of the valleys as is any hon. Member.
We have also had reference to the more rural parts of Wales. I was not able to hear all the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), but I have been informed of the main points he made. He naturally made special pleas for the smaller farmers. I remind him that altogether in the last 10 years £6 million has been injected in small farms economy in Wales. We have heard, as usual, comments about the Rural Development Board. I firmly believe that the hon. Member for Carmarthen will find in due course that the farmers in his constituency will deeply regret that they have been left out of the benevolent activities of the Rural Development Board, and that conversely the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will find that his constituents rejoice. We shall wait and see which of us proves to be right. I am confident. I am not normally a person who indulges in gambling, but I would take a fairly handsome bet on this.—[An HON. MEMBER: "How much?"]—I would have to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who is my adviser on my infrequent excursions into the betting world.
There has been some reference, though not as much as I would have expected, to one of the growth industries of Wales—tourism. I am particularly glad that we are to have a statutory tourist board for Wales. But the body which we already have working in the Principality, with the assistance of the Government, has carried out an extremely interesting analysis of the present tourist industry in Wales, and the facts brought out would not have come to light but for this Government-assisted research.
We can go very much further in tourism in Wales, but we need a far


greater consciousness among Welsh people themselves of the real possibilities of tourism. I think that it is true, as the Director of the Wales Tourist Board is apt to say, that we are still too much inclined to regard tourism as a by-product, an occupation partly for amateurs. It was very significant that the analysis indicated that in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Devon and Cornwall, visitors spend about 50 per cent. per head more than they spent in Wales. That is a challenge to us, to catch up with the South-West by providing adequate facilities for visitors and so induce them to spend more and add to our incomes.
I thought that I heard someone murmur "caravans". It is largely true that in some parts of Wales we place too great a reliance on caravans and too little on well-run hotels and guest houses.
We have also had some discussion today about the problems of local government reform. It is true that the Department has been discussing this for some time. We have had consultations, which are continuing. I am very sorry that there has been a tendency in the past few weeks—and this was echoed in the House by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) among others—to suggest that my right hon. Friend's proposals involved some reduction in powers for district councils. This is not so. To talk about their being reduced to the level of parish councils is absolute nonsense, because they will retain all the powers now enjoyed by district councils, including such very important powers as those of housing authorities. It was made clear the other day that the only power which it had been contemplated might be transferred to the county councils was that of rating authorities. But in view of all the arguments put forward against such a transfer my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that that power—the only one which had been under discussion for possible transfer—would remain with the district councils. I hope that, whatever else one may think on this matter, at least we shall not have this misrepresentation bandied about.
We are concerned about the whole future pattern of local government. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that all would be solved if we had

an elected Welsh council. There are strong and cogent arguments for that, and there are other arguments against it. It was made clear in the White Paper on this matter that possible changes in the structure and powers of the Welsh council were open to consideration, and that remains so. It is also true that my right hon. Friend has given an assurance to the local authority associations that they would have the opportunity of seeing what was proposed by the Royal Commission under Lord Redcliffe-Maud. We have been waiting rather a long time for that, and I can assure the House that we are just as impatient as anyone else.
We are disappointed that we have not yet had that report, because it has had the effect of slowing up some decisions on the Welsh pattern. We are now at least within sight of receiving the report. No one will be happier than the Ministers in the Welsh Office when we are able to bring Welsh local government reorganisation to some definitive conclusion. I have tried to touch on most subjects of major interest in the non-economic area of the debate.
I want now to mention matters concerning the economic basis of our society in Wales, which is of great importance to all of us. I undertook to say something about a matter of very special concern in areas where the basic industries are either slowing down or are using less manpower, as in steel, for technological reasons. Training and re-training are of particular importance to us in Wales, and we have a good record. Of the greatest importance is the training undertaken within industry. We have 28 industrial training boards in Wales, covering between 600,000 and 700,000 employees. We are also making good progress with group training schemes, of which there are now 24 in Wales, and more are planned. We have a reasonably satisfactory picture there.
We are also much concerned with the training centres established by the Government. Since we had our last Welsh debate, the third training centre in Wales has been opened, at Port Talbot, and our capacity for training in G.T.C.s is now approaching 1,500 trainees a year. A fourth centre, to be at Wrexham, is now under construction and should be in operation by the end of this year, we hope, or at the latest, by early 1970. I am


conscious that it is some while since, at this Box, I referred to the fifth training centre, in West Monmouthshire.
We have been under considerable, and understandable, pressure about progress here, but it has been entirely due to physical difficulties in an area of mining subsidence, which has made it impossible, until now, to be absolutely satisfied that we had a satisfactory site. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that now a suitable site has been found which satisfies the needs for solid construction and the new centre will be on a site in Pontllanfraith. This will bring very great satisfaction to my hon. Friends in Monmouthshire who have been waiting patiently for this announcement. I am sure that they will agree that this location—which is the location for which we have been trying—is in a key area of West Monmouthshire and will serve a very wide area, including Pontllanfraith, Ystradmynach and several other important places. We shall have a capacity to train about 2,000 persons a year in Government training centres, in addition to what is being done in industry.
I should also like to emphasise the very high rate of placement from training centres. We are sometimes asked how successful training centres are in securing employment for those who have attended them. I am glad to say that about 75 per cent. of those in training are placed in employment immediately on the termination of their training and that about 90 per cent. are placed within a month or so of training being completed. This is a tribute not only to the quality of the training received but also to the co-operation and good sense of the trade unions in Wales, who have been most co-operative in this matter.
May I turn to some of the points made in the debate on matters of employment and the development of the economy. As usual, we had the theme song of the hon. Member for Carmarthen about activity rates. His own activity rate in mentioning activity rates is to be commended. Hardly a week passes in which we do not hear something about them. We have tried on a number of occasions to explain to him what the position is, but for the record I should perhaps once more point out that we recognise that there is a discrepancy

between the activity rate for Wales and that for the rest of the country, for reasons which we have explained to the hon. Member several times.
In 1966, for example, the activity rate for men in Wales was 67·7 per cent. and in the country as a whole it was 76·2 per cent. According to our calculations, which I suppose to be at least as accurate as those of the hon. Member, the difference between those two figures is equivalent to 85,000 men—those whom the hon. Member calls the hidden unemployed. But if one studies the analysis one finds that in Wales, according to the latest figure, about 82 per cent. of males over 15 years of age were economically active or were students staying on at school beyond the normal school leaving age, of whom, I am glad to say, we have a fairly large proportion in Wales. There are also people who retire to Wales and who, because they have retired, are not economically active. The basis of these figures, which the hon. Member raises again and again, does not lead to the conclusions which he draws, nor do we find it possible to validate his calculations.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, referred at some length to figures given by my right hon. Friend. He sought to show that the Conservative Government had done better than had the present Government. I was surprised that he thought that we should fall for his calculations, because he knows—no one better, both from his Ministerial and from his business experience—that there is inevitably a time-lag between approval of an industrial development certificate and the completion of the factory.
One has to start by obtaining planning permission, and then one has often to acquire land, which takes a long time, apart from the planning and the physical building. There is, therefore, clearly a time lag of at least two or three years between approvals and completions. Therefore, completions in the earlier years of the present Administration—1964, 1965, and 1966—were almost all dependent on the small number of I.D.C.s approved by our predecessors, and it is only after those dates that we reap the benefit of the much wider economic policy for development areas adopted by the present Government.
I can give one simple set of figures to prove this. In 1963 the total approvals


for factory building for Wales was 1·6 million sq. ft., reflected later in the lower number of completions. This compares with 9·3 million sq. ft., 5·7 million sq. ft. and 8·8 million sq. ft. approved in the last three years. Those figures will be reflected in completions in the next two to three years. It is plain to anybody that our policy for regional development is far more comprehensive and effective than that of our predecessors. We had a record in 1968, and encouraging figures were given by my right hon. Friend for the earlier part of this year, economic figures of which we can be proud.
It is literally true that not a week passes in Wales when we do not have news of a new development in some part of Wales, maybe a very large enterprise or a small extension or a small advance factory in one of the more rural areas. If one looks at our Press notices week after week, one can see that we are beginning to reap the harvest of the policy this Government adopted when they came in; and, although economics is not everything, we are all convinced that this is the basis for social progress and a healthy community life. We have no fear at all of an examination of our record in this respect.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. William Edwards: We have today had some optimistic speeches from our front bench spokesmen and particularly from the Secretary of State. It is time for optimism, because all we have had in Wales for a long time, from politicians, newspapers and commentators on press and television, has been a tale of woe.
An image has been given, not only to the people of Wales, but to all Great Britain, that there has been something endemically wrong with the economy of the whole of Wales. This is one of the traps we fall into because of the encouragement given to the development of Wales as an entity, and to the image that Wales is an economic entity. We have created an image in all parts of Great Britain that there is something chronically wrong with the economy of Wales and with opportunities in Wales. This is not the case. The Command Paper being discussed today has shown that it differs from area to area. It is remarkable that we have had so much success

in North and Mid-Wales where we did not expect to succeed and where politically we did not need to succeed in the same way as we had to in the old mining areas of South Wales.
In my constituency the figures are not taken into account by the supporters of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). In 1964, before the Labour Party took office, not one square yard of land had been purchased by any authority for factory building and not one factory in the advance factory programme had been allocated, even though the area had been a development area for some time. In the last four years land has been acquired, factories have been built and tenants have been found for them and the factories are offering employment, mainly to men.
It is dangerous to try to analyse the Government's success entirely in terms of the effect of their policies upon unemployment figures, because we have also to examine the way in which we have diversified the economy of some parts of Wales. To have diversified the economy of rural areas is a remarkable achievement. Merioneth, for example, was an area entirely dependent on agriculture and now provides job opportunities in rather sophisticated engineering industries. To do that in a period of three years and to translate the policy into fact is a remarkable achievement, a considerable act of faith on the part of the Government, for which they are to be commended.
When the Government was attacked from certain quarters for their failure to combat the low activity rate in some parts of Wales, those comments have to be viewed with a certain scepticism, especially when they come from the hon. Member for Carmarthen. Any modem policy to combat our endemic problems in Wales will lead to a barrage of criticism from the hon. Member and his supporters. This is true of rural development. If a part of Wales had not been designated for rural development, there would have been an outcry. There was a barrage of criticism when we proposed the new town for Mid-Wales. It was said that it would destroy our way of life and do all manner of other things. What it would do to the activity rate was forgotten.
According to the hon. Member, town development should concentrate on existing towns the size of which, he said, should be slightly increased; but when we proposed that, again we were subjected to a barrage of criticism. There was criticism about Bala, not open criticism but criticism made in leaflets distributed by the Nationalist Party from house to house. When considerable capital investment in Holyhead was proposed, nearly every major supporter of the Nationalist Party in Anglesey conducted a campaign from positions on the county council to kill the proposal.
Any attempt to translate the old rural economy into a modern industrial economy has been attacked, but such attempts in areas of rural Wales where no attempt has previously been made are succeeding and continuing to succeed. An indication of the success of these policies is the fact that we are not hearing so much of the activities of the hon. Member's party as are some of the old coal mining areas of South Wales. The hon. Member's party has a vested interest in failure and we have not.
The hon. Member spoke of an electricity board for Wales. I would support the establishment of any kind of authority which recognised Wales as a distinct national entity. One must be careful when trying to do this in the short term. Discussions are now taking place in Wales about an Electricity Board. I am not a supporter of establishing an Electricity Board for the whole of Wales. The South Wales Electricity Board has constantly and consistently been in the red. The Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board has consistently been able to balance its accounts. In so doing it has injected every year, since 1947, about £1 million of capital into North Wales at the expense of Merseyside. That capital has gone into the electrification of rural areas in my constituency that would never have been electrified if we had depended on a Welsh account for the electricity industry.
These figures are not taken into account by the hon. Member for Carmarthen when he tries to balance the books for Wales. The figures that are always relied upon are somewhat archaic and rather doubtful, but all this additional aid that is given by nationalised

boards is ignored, as the hon. Gentleman ignores the considerable amount of subsidy that is given to dairy farmers in his constituency in the form of Treasury grants to ensure that all the surplus milk that they produce is delivered to the London market, which is already receiving more liquid milk that it can cope with.
I make these points because the optimism of my right hon. Friend may be attacked. It is significant that the hon. Member for Carmarthen today had little to say about the success of the Government's policy for the dairy industry, upon which his constituency relies so heavily. How much we heard when the Padfield Committee's Report came out, how much we heard about the need to protect the dairy farmers; but how little congratulation we heard because the Government took a decision to protect the interests of the farmers of Carmarthen and how little we heard about the amount done for the hill sheep and livestock farmers in rural Wales. The Welsh farmer depends heavily on these special subsidies given by the Government, but how little congratulation we heard from the hon. Gentleman.
We heard very little about the tourist industry. I have a sneaking suspicion that because we have done the very thing that the hon. Member for Carmarthen would want us to do we have had no commendation for doing it. Because Wales is to have a Tourist Board which will be capable of developing the Welsh tourist industry, with its own characteristic flavour, we have received no commendation from the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
I have noticed with interest in the Press in Wales that it is not the hon. Member for Carmarthen who makes pronouncements on things of this kind, but the candidates of the Nationalist Party. The one in my constituency takes a greater interest in Wales, no doubt because he lives in London. Because we support the tourist industry, in Wales, it is looked upon as some kind of threat to the economy. Because we are doing something for it, we are apparently doing it at the expense of the farmer, the collier or the quarry worker. This is a modern industry which can succeed, but I do not think that the Nationalist Party wants to see it succeed because its development


will bring into Wales a number of new people and it will create new attitudes.
We are not facing an endemic industrial economic problem; it is a problem of attitudes. Dealing with this introverted attitude which is developing in Wales will be the problem of this and every Government. I refer to the attitude in Wales that there is some sort of conspiracy; that everybody is working against us. That is the attitude being encouraged by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. Today it may be a conspiracy by British Rail. Tomorrow it may be a conspiracy by the Tourist Board or the Milk Marketing Board. There is a constant search for a conspiracy to explain our deficiencies and failings.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said that we lacked enterprise to develop our resources. We do lack certain things. We lack our own hoteliers, perhaps we have an excess of teachers and preachers, and we are not doing enough to develop our resources. However, we do great harm to the cause of developing our abilities when we encourage narrow-minded introvertism to grow in our schools. Our young people are being told that they will not prosper because some dreadful people across the Border are selling their assets and conspiring against them. A lot of narrow-minded bigoted people are influencing our young people and are warping their minds and ideas about the way in which their nation can and should develop.
These prophets of woe do not influence anybody in this House because we are able to analyse their remarks. However, they are influencing those who are considering investing in Wales. More dangerous, they are influencing the younger generation in Wales and giving them a completely false idea of the way in which they should be developing, of how they should be playing their part in the modern world, of the problems we have, why we have them and how we should set about solving them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Wales for 1968 (Command Paper No. 3930).

FAMILY ALLOWANCES (QUALIFICATIONS) REGULATIONS

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I beg to move,
That the Family Allowances (Qualifications) Regulations 1969 (S.I. 1969. No. 212), dated 19th February 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be withdrawn.
My hon. Friends and I do not object to these Regulations, which are mostly of a consolidating nature. However, we wish to hear from the Minister the reasons for the changes in the limits incorporated in the amendments to Regulations 12(2) and 15(2). While these proposed changes are no doubt due to experience, we should be told more about them.
I draw attention to Regulations 2(2) and 2(3) which cover the payment of family allowances in respect of children of parents who are not British subjects born in this country. The Regulations provide that no family allowances are payable unless one of the parents has been in Great Britain for one year out of the last two if he or she is a British subject or British protected person; or for three years out of the last four if neither is a British subject or British protected person.
We are all aware of the ignorant and bigoted talk that goes on about immigrants coming here and being immediately entitled to benefit from family allowances without having made any contribution to the economy of the country. These Regulations show that that is not so and that it has not been so for the lifetime of the Scheme, since Regulations 2(2) and 2(3) are lifted in their entirety from the 1946 Regulations. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of the sort of talk that does nothing but harm relations in Britain.
Our purpose in praying against the Regulations is to point out how the definition of "temporary" in Regulation 8—a definition which does not coincide with the criterion used by the Inland Revenue—can cause anomalies which, in turn, can convince a citizen that he is being unjustly treated; and to suggest to the Minister that the saving clause in Regulation 10(2)(b) should similarly be provided in Regulation 8.
We all know from our regular surgeries or clinics that very large numbers of our constituents come to see us and complain that they are entirely baffled by the whole of the vast State machine and say that "they" have done something and ask what we can do to help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot on the Motion before the House suggest alterations to the Regulations.

Mr. Fortescue: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not intended specifically to suggest alterations. I had intended to suggest that the Minister might consider that one day, perhaps in a new set of Regulations, something should be done about this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not even in order in this debate either.

Mr. Fortescue: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying how our constituents come to see us and say that they are baffled by the State machine. Even we have to write to the Department concerned and ask for an explanation. We always get a courteous reply. It is not always prompt, but when it comes it is pretty good. Sometimes the reply we get, especially when the workings of more than one Department are concerned, is without logic and practically beyond all reason. It is in cases such as these that the constituent feels that he is in the grip of some unthinking and uncontrollable inhuman machine, and it is very difficult for a Member of Parliament to convince him that he is not.
Section 20(4) of the Family Allowances Act, 1965, provides that
the temporary absence of a person
from Great Britain "shall be disregarded" when considering whether he or she qualifies for a family allowance. Regulation 8(1)(b) of these Regulations provides that
the absence of a person
from Great Britain
shall be treated as temporary except in the following circumstances—

(i) if it is or was when it began for a purpose other than a temporary purpose; or
(ii) if it has lasted for a continuous period exceeding 6 months; or

(iii) if the person is a member of a family for which there was no right to an allowance in existence immediately prior to that date, and for more than 26 weeks in the aggregate out of the 12 months immediately preceding that date he has neither been present nor been a member of the Forces, a merchant seaman or a person under treatment".

Regulation 10(2), on the other hand, which covers a child's absence from Great Britain, says that this
shall be treated as temporary—

(a) if and so long as it is not intended to exceed and has not exceeded 6 months, for the period of such absence; or
(b) in any other case if it is for a temporary purpose, for such period or periods, if at all, as the Secretary of State in his discretion may from time to time determine having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case".

Thus an adult's absence, even if always for a temporary purpose, intended for a temporary purpose, and actually for a temporary purpose, is held not to be temporary if it lasts one day longer than six months, although a child's absence if it is for a temporary purpose can last for any period, for as long a period as the Secretary of State in his absolute discretion may decide. Already there is an anomaly—the different treatment of a parent from that of a child under the Regulations. I believe from my study of the case that these Regulations were meant to apply to the case of a child being away from this country while the parents remained in this country—a child going abroad for education or for some other purpose.
The anomaly that we already have is greatly aggravated by the fact that the residence rule for Income Tax purposes is once again different. This rule is—I quote from no less an authority than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in a letter to me dated 31st March of this year—that
A person whose ordinary residence has been in the United Kingdom and who leaves the country for only occasional residence abroad is regarded as continuing to be resident for that period if it does not span a complete Income Tax year.
So for parents, for family allowance purposes, the period is six months. For children, for family allowance purposes, it is an indefinite period if the Secretary of State should so decide. For Income Tax purposes it is an Income Tax year. At once we have citizens enmeshed in a maze of incomprehensible legislative


regulations, and they do not understand what is going on.
In support of my case I should like to quote a family in my constituency which has become mixed up in this maze and does not see its way out of it. The family name is Taylor. The father was a pilot with British Eagle, which, unhappily, is no longer operative. In 1968 he was sent to Spain for a temporary stay for six months to work for British Eagle. He took his wife with him, but he left his two older children at home with their grandmother. Before Mr. and Mrs. Taylor left they wrote to the family allowances office at Newcastle and said that they were going, and asked that the grandmother be authorised to draw the family allowances during their absence in Spain. This was agreed to—this is provided for in the Act—and off they went.
They were away for just over six months. The intention was not in any way changed, but they did not come back within the six months. They came back a few days later. They were promptly informed that for the next six months they would forfeit their family allowances for the two children who had remained in England because they had been away for longer than six months. They replied that Mr. Taylor's salary had been paid from England during the whole of his absence, that the ordinary tax and insurance deductions had been made from that salary during the whole of his absence, and that the expenses of the children had been the same during the whole of his absence; but nothing could be done. They appealed to the tribunal, and their appeal was turned down, quite rightly. On the regulations their appeal was dismissed.
They were still smarting from that blow when a few days after they returned from Spain they received a letter from the Income Tax authorities which said:
I regret that as you remain resident in the United Kingdom you are liable to tax on all moneys paid in the United Kingdom, and no repayment is due in respect of the period spent abroad. Will you please make an Income Tax return, together with a statement of the amount of family allowances received for the period 6th April, 1968 to date",
and so on. Not only were they liable for Income Tax for the whole of the period they were abroad, but they were

liable to Income Tax on the family allowances their children had received while they were abroad.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we are discussing not the Income Tax regulations, but this consolidating Measure, Statutory Instrument No. 212. We cannot discuss the merits of the parent Act. We can discuss only the consolidation of the changes which the Regulations make. I think that the hon. Member's case is based more on existing legislation than on the changes proposed in these Regulations.

Mr. Fortescue: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely we can discuss the content of the Regulations, and not only the changes that have been made? The fact that they are consolidating Regulations does not alter the fact that we can discuss the content of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The practice is that when we discuss a consolidating Measure we can discuss only the merits or otherwise of consolidating. We cannot discuss the merits of the Regulations being consolidated.

Mr. Fortescue: Does that mean that I cannot discuss the content of these Regulations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss only whether they should be consolidated in one set of Regulations. The hon. Member cannot discuss the detailed merits of the Regulations. That has always been the practice with consolidating Measures. The hon. Member can discuss the one or two changes which are made in the Regulations.

Mr. Fortescue: I have already discussed those and asked the Minister to explain them. I shall adapt my speech to keep in order, but I am a little surprised and taken aback by your Ruling. I thought that as these Regulations were on the Table they could be discussed. Surely that must be the practice? I shall try to adapt my case to your Ruling. I am fortunate to have been made the point about Income Tax before you called me to order and I shall not revert to it.
The Taylor family are now back in England. They were baffled by the situation and saw me about it. I want to


make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor before they went abroad wrote to the Ministry and asked for authority to have their family allowances paid to the grandmother, and this was granted. I have no criticism of that. Would it not be possible in such cases, however, when authority is given, to warn the parents that, if they do not come back within six months—that in itself is an anomaly—they will forfeit the allowance for six months? Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were not told of this Regulation and could not be expected to be familiar with every detail of the Regulations.
I am used to obtaining from the hon. Gentleman slight concessions to constituents of mine after debates, and I put this to him in the hope that I shall obtain one again. Would it not be possible to spell out their rights to parents going abroad and thus prevent them from having a sense of injustice? They should be warned that they might put their family allowances in jeopardy.

12.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I think it is a good thing if we discuss from time to time the reasons for some of the intricacies of the rules and regulations in our various schemes, and I am to that extent grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) for raising this matter. I do not, however, propose to detain the House for very long.
No one would pretend that these Regulations are simple, and I have considerable sympathy with those who find them difficult reading, and I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in presenting his case. But if we are going to make laws which cater fairly for the varieties of circumstance of nearly four million families containing over 10 million children I am afraid that some complexity is unavoidable.
As the hon. Member said, the Regulations for the most part simply consolidate the old Regulations made in 1946 and the amendments made since then, so that they are all on one piece of paper. Such changes as have been made are few and comparatively minor. It may be helpful,

however, if I explain what the main changes are.
There are only two material amendments. The first is in Regulation 12(2). This provides that where a child is in the care of a local authority or a voluntary organisation, his absence from his parents can be treated as temporary for a maximum period of four weeks.
I should explain that for a child to be included in his parent's family he must normally be living with them or they must be contributing at least 18s. a week to his maintenance. Periods during which he can be treated as temporarily absent from them or their contributions temporarily break down are, however, disregarded.
Under the old Regulations "temporary absence" was in most cases limited to four weeks where a child had been taken into the care of a local authority or similar body and his parents were not contributing for his maintenance. This was in most cases, but not in all. An unintentional result of the way in which the Regulations were drafted was that if the authority then boarded-out the child with foster-parents within four weeks, the parents could continue to count the child in their family for 12 weeks instead of four. The new Regulation prevents this happening; it also ensures that foster-parents who might otherwise have been denied the right to count the child in their family between the fourth and 12th week of absence from the parents can now do so.
The second material amendment is in sub-paragraph (g) of Regulation 15(2). This ensures that a child still counts for family allowances when he is on holiday between schools or between school and college or university.
Family allowances may be payable for a child over school-leaving age and under 19 if he is undergoing full-time instruction in a school, college, university or similar establishment. Obviously, we have to allow for periods when he is not actually at school because of, say, holidays or sickness but his full-time education has not finished. Ordinary school holidays were already covered by the old Regulation; and absence from school because of a change of school was disregarded for up to four weeks. But there has been


some doubt about the practice of allowing a child who left one school in the summer and went to another or to university in the autumn to count for family allowances in the intervening period. The new provision in the Regulations makes it clear that in this sort of case the holidays of either school or university can be disregarded for up to 16 weeks, in addition to absence of up to four weeks at the beginning or end of term.
There are a number of other minor amendments, but I do not propose to occupy the time of the House by listing them now. Hon. Members will appreciate how minor they are if I say that one of them substitutes for a now obsolete reference to the Royal Army Service Corps a reference to the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, which is the Corps now responsible for N.A.A.F.I. personnel, who count as "members of the forces" for family allowances purposes.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston touched on a particular case in which the provisions in Regulation 8 about people going from or coming to this country worked to the disadvantage of one of his constituents. I should be out of order, I suppose, if I attempted to go into the details of the particular case that the hon. Member has raised, but I shall be writing to him about it. His letter to the Financial Secretary was handed to me only recently, and therefore, I have not been able to write earlier, but I have taken note of what the hon. Member has said tonight.
The rules in Regulation 8 have the effect for an ordinary family in which the mother and father both go abroad for a short while that if they stay abroad for less than six months they can continue to qualify for family allowances while they are away and immediately they return; and if they stay abroad for more than six months they will lose their right to family allowances after six months and will have to serve a re-qualification period of 26 weeks when they return.
The rules seek to strike a balance—and it seems to me a fair one—between, at one extreme, excluding a claimant for any period of absence from Great Britain

and, at the other extreme, admitting the continued right to family allowance of anyone abroad, however long he or she has been away.
As to the suggestion that the family allowance rules about presence in or absence from Great Britain do not square with the tax rules about residence abroad, here again I can only say that there is no particular reason why they should. This is, however, as the hon. Member knows, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me.
I do not want to delay the House much longer—

Mr. Fortescue: The Minister has just said that the matter is one for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In writing to me, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the question of entitlement to family allowance is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's Department. I am trying to bring the two Departments together to consider the matter from one point of view instead of two, but it seems impossible to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that line too far, because it is out of order.

Mr. Pentland: I leave it at that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I appreciate your Ruling on the matter.
In conclusion, it seems to me rather belated to commend to the House Regulations most of which have already been effective for so long; but I am sure that they remain sound, and I am equally sure that, for the convenience of all of us, this sort of consolidating and tidying-up measure is useful and to be welcomed by everyone in the House.
I therefore hope that the hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel able to withdraw their Motion.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the Under-Secretary's very kind approach to my speech, and the fact that he is going to write to me so soon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROWNTREES OF YORK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When I applied for this Adjournment debate on the bid by General Foods Corporation of New York for Rowntrees of York, I did so in the hope that it might disturb the campaign to further this bid. In so far as that was my intention it has wholly been achieved before I opened my mouth in this debate, because the bid has now been withdrawn.
The events since Friday of last week, when it was announced that it was my intention to seek this debate, wherein the trustees of the various trusts which control 56 per cent. of the shareholding of Rowntrees decided not to accept the offer, and the statement by the General Foods' chairman and by the directors of Rowntrees since, and the withdrawal of the bid, all follow in such a sequence that I hope I can take a certain humble credit in believing that the announcement of this debate has at least crystallised the situation and cleared the air in a way that my constituents will be very glad to hear about.
There were wider interests in this takeover bid than were acknowledged by many of the financial writers in the national Press. To read some of the accounts, which have clearly been inspired by the merchant bankers acting on behalf of General Foods, one would think that the only thing that had to be considered was the interests of the minority shareholders. But, in fact, there were a great many other issues which had to be considered, and although the issue is now academic in so far as it relates to this bid, I think there are some lessons that can be drawn from the experience which it might be helpful to recollect in future incidents of this kind.
It is not my intention this evening to attack the concepts of mergers or takeovers. It is, in my view, one of the great achievements of this Government that in setting up the I.R.C., and in the other efforts they have made to restructure British industry, they have signally achieved the rationalisation of British

industry which was long overdue, and I hope that process will be continued.
Equally, it is not my intention to attack the idea of American investment in British industry. Clearly, American investment has much to offer in furthering technological change, in new techniques in management and marketing, all of which can lead to greater efficiency in British industry. What I would urge in relation to this bid is that these beneficial criteria both for take-overs and for American investment cannot be applied blanket-wise to every bid situation, which appears to have been the attitude of the national Press, but that one has to look at the particular effects of the given situation and decide in the national interest in either allowing or disallowing the bid, or furthering or not furthering it.
In this situation we had a firm which is a very significant firm in the English confectionery business—the second, I think, in size—which by any standards was efficient. Its marketing process has been responsible for creating a number of brand names which are selling exceedingly well, and new lines have been introduced in the last few years which have been accepted by the public and are selling well not only in this country but in many parts of the world. This firm's exports are a significant addition to the British balance of payments and are, I would think, the kind of example that many other British firms could follow.
In addition, in the last few years Rowntrees have invested in a base in Europe which was extremely expensive. It took a great risk in starting the venture. The venture is now breaking even, and the possibility of considerable profit in the near future is such as ought to delight the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever it does for the shareholders of Rowntrees. Equally, a new marketing and technical agreement with Philip Morris of America has now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise only matters for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister can hardly be regarded as responsible for the way in which the Rowntree business is conducted.

Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may put the background


to my point before I reach the point, it will, I hope, have greater effect on the Minister. The point that I shall be coming to in due course is that this was the kind of American investment in British industry which ought to be discouraged, that there is no power at the moment to discourage it, and that it would be useful in considering any extension of the power of the Board of Trade to consider such a situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot suggest any new legislation in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Lyon: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we shall possibly proceed more quickly if I may make my point. We are not discussing new legislation. We are discussing the kind of attitude which the Board of Trade takes to possible American investment. It does not require new legislation. It requires a different policy in deciding what is in the national interest. So far the policy is defined and does not include a situation such as obtains in this take-over bid. My argument is that it ought to do.
I say that this was an efficient operation here in this country which was profitable up to the last few years, when its profitability declined for two reasons. The first was that it was investing very heavily in Europe, and this inevitably had an effect upon its profit ratio. But equally—and I was only too conscious of this when the bid was made—over the past two years the working of the prices policy of the Government had operated adversely against any firm in the British confectionery industry which was dominated by large units, and, therefore, very easily amenable to the pressure which the Government could put on it in exercising their prices policy. When I discussed the prices policy with Rowntrees I was told that this was one of the dangers, and I, too, became aware that the danger which had been foreseen had materialised.
It was partly for those two reasons that the profitability of Rowntrees in the last couple of years was less than the shareholders expected, and it made it possible for this bid to be made.
That having been said, however, it does not detract from my general conviction that this is a highly efficient firm and that nothing the Americans could

add to it would make it more efficient. Nor does it detract from the point that the export potential of this firm is very great even as it stands. When it is linked to the Mackintosh merger, its export potential is enormous. Therefore, no benefits in terms of exports would be significantly increased by the General Foods bid. What General Foods was seeking to do was to buy the technological "know-how" of this company to use it in the American market and, equally, to adopt the base which Rowntrees had built in Europe for its own development.
When one talks about technological "know-how" in relation to chocolate, there is perhaps an invidious comparison with hovercraft and carbon fibre, but the British confectionery industry is almost—indeed, it might be said that it is—paramount in the world. For some reason, the customer likes British chocolate more than he likes most other national makes, perhaps with the exception of the Swiss. Whereas the general level of eating confectionery in Europe is 4⅛oz. a week, in this country it is 7 oz., and in the United States it is only 3, 4 or 5 oz. in some areas. So the British confectionery industry has been an extremely successful industry. Of the major international companies, three are British and only one is American, and that one uses British "know-how".
General Foods, with no confectionery in this country, wanted to buy that know-how. It was offering cash for each share in Rowntrees, and presumably was to use that "know-how" to exploit the American market. If it had tried to do it by buying American confectionery industries it would probably have been stopped by the anti-trust laws in America. Yet this giant conglomerate, stopped from doing that by American legislation, could come to this country and buy as it would, or so it thought. There would have been real damage to the British national interest in allowing this bid to succeed. There would have been damage in the sense that our technology would have been bought by the Americans. There would have been damage in the sense that, although there might have been some increase in exports, the profits would flow back to the United States and, therefore, there would have been a drain on balance of payments on current account, although initially there would


have been a sharp increase on capital account, but also General Foods would have obtained and exploited the European market which had been built by British investment.
It seems that on that basis there was a jolly good case for denying the bid in the national interest. Yet the case was never allowed to be put in the financial journals until quite recently. All that one heard was that the minority shareholders who had the right to sell their shares at the highest rate and some-how or other the trustees of the trust who control the major shareholding were being unfair to the other shareholders and that they ought to be reported to the take-over panel for that reason. Even on a purely commercial judgment there are good grounds for saying that the long-term prospects of a Mackintosh-Rowntree merger are far better than the prospects from General Foods. Apart from that, the trustees were performing a public duty in the national interest in refusing the bid, a duty which should never have been laid on them but should have been laid on the Board of Trade.
It is this aspect of the matter which most concerns me, because the pressure which has been brought to bear through the newspaper columns on the trustees has been intolerable. I do not believe that it is any part of their duty simply to look to the interests of the minority shareholders. They are entitled to reject a bid on any grounds they prefer, just as any other shareholder is. They are not, surely, to decide only on the price of the share, though this seems to have been the general newspaper view.
On this point I call in aid a very powerful article by Lord Goodman in the Sunday Times of 12th January. Although I rarely find myself in agreement with him, the article epitomises my argument. In the course of it he says:
I believe that any solution requires the firm recognition that the issues involved"—takeover bids—"transcend the interests of the shareholders as shareholders, and that virtuous as they may be as a class our devotion to their interests, regardless of other factors, is misguided and damaging to the national picture.
That is pure common sense.
There are matters at issue in a big take-over bid like this such as the security of workers, the perpetuation of

the unique labour relations of Rowntrees, the effect on the economy of a city like York isolated from every other urban area, questions about the public interest, the export potential of the alternative groups, the kind of investment which has been made in Europe which might be lost to this country, and the drain on the balance of payments of the profits of the company going back to the United States. All these issues were vital, and should have been considered by someone.
It is true that the Board of Trade is empowered to consider the question of the effect on competition within the economy in deciding whether to put the matter to the Monopolies Commission. But, subject to that, its present policy suggests that it has very limited room for intervention in this kind of merger or take-over. I should like to see this policy widened so that any such future American take-over bid, with only really an American company to gain from it, should be frowned upon and, if possible, forbidden altogether.

12.34 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is in the delightful position of having succeeded in his case before he presented it. He apparently asked for this Adjournment debate in an attempt to defeat General Foods' bid. General Foods having withdrawn it, he is happy. This leaves us, as he says, with a somewhat academic debate, though I appreciate his attempt to draw from the situation certain lessons that he believes we should learn.
My hon. Friend spent some time reviewing the commercial-industrial record of Rowntrees, pointing out that it was a very efficient firm, engaging in exports to a significant extent, and, judging from his speech, I would guess that if he were a shareholder in Rowntrees—I do not know whether he is—he would not have accepted the bid, so confident is he in the future. I am delighted to hear what he says, and I hope that his confidence is in every respect endorsed. I certainly have no reason to think it will not be. He has certainly invested a great deal of confidence in this firm, which I am sure is justified.
My hon. Friend is making a judgment on the facts of the case as he sees it. It is true that in any take-over bid the shareholders of a company have to assess whether the bid is worth accepting. We were not saying, when we decided not to refer this bid to the Monopolies Commission, that the shareholders in Rowntrees should accept the bid. What we were saying was that, subject to certain assurances that we secured from General Foods, we did not think it right to refer this bid to the Monopolies Commission. Insofar as there was danger of public detriment, we thought that that danger was covered by the assurances which we got from General Foods. We received specific assurances that General Foods would maintain and extend production and exports, and that no action would be taken which would lead to the running-down of production and employment in the United Kingdom. Subject to those assurances, we saw no reason to refer this to the Monopolies Commission.
My hon. Friend began by saying that he does not attack mergers; on the contrary he congratulated the Government on their industrial policy. Nor does he attack American investment. He saw considerable advantages in such investment in this country. I do not need to go into the advantages; he referred to some of them. But he said that these are not policies that can be applied blanket-wise. Evidently he wishes us to discriminate; but we do not attempt to apply these policies blanket-wise.
We look at the facts of particular cases and attempt to judge the cases on their merits. If my hon. Friend will read the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, made during the course of the Budget debate, he will see how we operate our monopolies and mergers policy. I do not think that anyone could claim, reading that speech, that we have any blanket approach to mergers. On the contrary, we take the same view as my hon. Friend explained, that there are in many cases industrial advantages to be gained from mergers. But there are cases where it is necessary to take action against them and refer them to the Monopolies Commission because there is a possibility of public detriment.
Incidentally, I would remind my hon. Friend that a bid is not defeated by a

reference to the Commission. The Board of Trade has no power to stop a takeover bid. What it has power to do is, in certain appropriate cases, to refer the bid to the Commission. Only if the Commission makes a recommendation to that effect to the Board of Trade has the Board of Trade power to stop it. I make this point to remind my hon. Friend that even if he had got his way, and the Board of Trade had decided to refer the bid to the Monopolies Commission, this does not mean that he would have succeeded in what was evidently his objective. That would have depended on the report of the Monopolies Commission.
Then my hon. Friend says that we must have no blanket approach to inward investment, and again I agree. Obviously, there may be cases where inward investment should be resisted, or where assurances should be obtained. One knows of many cases where the Government have thought it desirable to obtain assurances. My hon. Friend appears to be afraid that we have no powers to deal with cases where it is judged to be contrary to the national interest that a particular act of proposed inward investment should take place.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether included in the heading "possible detriment to the national interest" is the disappearance of almost unique industrial procedures which have been built up at Rowntrees?

Mr. Dell: If the hon. Member reads the Act dealing with monopolies and mergers he will find that very wide matters can be taken into account by the Monopolies Commission in making its judgment on any set of circumstances. The Board of Trade has to judge, in the light of the circumstances displayed to it by the companies involved, whether to refer a case.
My hon. Friend fears that there is no power. In fact, there is power. It was not used in this case, but it exists. Under the Exchange Control Act—which is a matter not for me but for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is possible to refuse exchange control permission. Where such permission is necessary, as it usually is in


cases of inward investment, it can be refused. One factor which can be taken into consideration in that refusal is the effect on the balance of payments.
My hon. Friend's argument suggested that his view was that our balance of payments would have been harmed by this inward investment. Certainly it is in the power of the Treasury to take account of the balance-of-payment effects of a particular inward investment before giving exchange control permission. There is power, just as, if there is a possibility of public detriment, there is power to make a reference to the Monopolies Commission.
My hon. Friend seemed to take the view that it was part of the function of the Board of Trade to bolster the position of the Rowntree Trusts which, he felt, were subject to intolerable newspaper pressure. The Rowntree Trusts seem to have taken their view despite the newspaper pressure of which he was afraid. But the Government have to act within the legislation, which governs our actions just as it governs the actions of every citizen. In so far as social considerations were

involved in this bid—and I recognise those social considerations and the unique character of this company—I think that they were social considerations which the Trusts, under the trust deed, are obliged to take into account. That is, I think, a correct interpretation of their position.
We are, in fact, discussing a bid which has been withdrawn. If my hon. Friend's fear simply is that there is no power, I assure him that there is power. If he is worried that the Government are not sufficiently informed on all matters on which they should be informed about the implications for this country of inward investment, I can inform him—as has been announced to the House—that we are carrying out a full-scale study of the implications for this country of inward investment. I hope that much emerges from that study for us to learn about the effect on this country of the many instances of inward investment which have taken place with, as I think the House is in general agreed, considerable benefit to the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.